
Author 



Title 



Imprint 



19— «7372--2 OPO 









SPEECH 

OF 

THE RIGHT REV. DR. HUGHES, 

DELIVERED 

On the 16th, nth and 21st days' of June, 1841. 

BEING 

A REVIEW AND REFUTATION 

OF 

THE REMONSTRANCE OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY, 

AND 

THE ARGUMENT OF HIRAM KETCHUM, Esq,, 

THEIR COUNSEL, 
BEFORE 
A COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 

AGAINST 

THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 

ON THE SUBJECT OF 

COMMON SCHOOL EDUCATION. 



*&&**> \ ^C^4^&Of. 



■><$►*<: 



Specially Reported for the New York Freeman's Journal, 
BY DR. J. A. HOUSTON. 



NEWYORK: 
PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICE OF THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL, 

150 FULTON STREET. 
1841. 



\A 



S PEE C H 

S 

OF , ; 

THE RIGHT REV. DR., HUGHES, 

DELIVERED 

On the 16th, 17 th and 'Hist days' of June, 1841. 

BEING 

A REVIEW AND REFUTATION 

OF 

THE ARGUMENT OF HIRAM KETCHUM, Esq., 

COUNSEL FOR THE FUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETTj 
S BEFORE 

A COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 

AGAINST 

THE REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 

ON THE SUBJECT OF 

COMMON SCHOOL EDUCATION. 



Specially Reported for the New York Freeman's Journal, 
BY DR. J. A. HOUSTON. 



NEWYORK 
PUBLISHED AT THE OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK FREEMAN'S JOURNAL. 

NO. 150 FULTON STREET NEW YORK. 

1841. 



PREFACE 

BY THE PUBLISHER 



It has been thought advisable, for the information of those not con- 
versant with the history of the matter, to accompany the annexed Report 
of Bishop Hughes' late speech at Carroll Hall, with a brief statement of 
the course which the agitation of the question of Common School Education 
in the city of New-York, has taken during the past eighteen months. 

Differing from the rest ot the state, the city of New- York, or rather, the 
Common Council of that city, to whom a discretionary power on the 
subject was given by the Legislature, has for more than fifteen years past 
confided to a private corporation, styled " The Public School Society of 
New- York," almost the entire charge and business of Common School 
education ; together with the management, disposition, and control of the 
public fund raised by taxation and otherwise for that purpose. 

Much dissatisfaction had been felt with the system and the exclusive 
privileges of this society, especially among that portion of the community 
professing the Catholic faith, whose religious feelings and conscientious 
convictions were, not only not regarded, but violated, in so serious a 
manner by the teachings, and the irreligious or adverse influences brought 
to bear on the minds of the pupils, that they, almost without exception, 
withheld their children from the schools of the Society. In these circum- 
stances they established such free schools for the education of their 
children, as their limited means enabled them to provide ; and they 
repeatedly petitioned the Common Council of the city, that a portion of 
the School Fund should be appropriated to the support of those schools. 
under such regulations as the Council might prescribe. The prayer of 
the petitioners was, however, invariably denied. But the petitioners 
still persevered. — Numerous and crowded public meetings were held on 
this subject in the city of New- York, during the past year, by those who 
were aggrieved, and who were interested in promoting the cause of uni- 
versal education. A determined spirit was manifested by all to effect a 
reform, and break down the monopoly, which secured th<? management of 
this most important interest of education in the hands of an irresponsible 
few. A petition for relief was again presented to the Common Council 
by the Catholics, and they prayed to be heard in its support before the 
Board, by counsel, or otherwise. The Public School Society remonstrated, 
and prayed to be heard in opposition. The 29th of last October was desig- 
nated by the Common Council for hearing the different parties on this 
subject : and on that day and the following one, a most important and 



IV 

highly interesting debate took place before the united Boards of Aldermen 
and Assistants. The Right Rev. Dr. Hughes maintained the discussion on 
the part of the petitioners, and Hiram Ketchum and Theodore Sedgwick, 
Esqrs., spoke on the other side, as counsel for the Public School Society, 
assisted by several other gentlemen. The result, notwithstanding the 
clear and unanswerable reasoning of Bishop Hughes, was, as it had been 
on former occasions, adverse to the petitioners. Their application was 
denied. 

Determined not to abandon what they considered to be a just and re- 
publican principle, the friends of freedom of education in the city of New- 
York, notwithstanding the adverse issue before the Common Council, pre- 
pared petitions, and forwarded them to ihe Legislature of the State, during 
its recent session at Albany, setting forth the grievances under which they 
laboured, and praying for redress. The matter was referred by the 
Senate to the Hon. John C. Spencer, Secretary o r State and Superinten- 
dant of Common Schools, who made a report unfavorable to the present 
exclusive system, and distinguished alike by its clear and statesmanlike 
views, its liberal, just, and patriotic principles, and its unanswerable 
arguments — and in it he recommended that the system of Common 
School education prevailing throughout the state should be extended to 
the city of New-York. 

The Public School Society, alarmed for the existence of their exclusive 
and unnatural prerogatives, sent a remonstrance to the legislature, against 
granting the petition oi those who felt aggrieved by their system ; and 
they also procured leave to be, and were, heard on the subject before a 
committee of the Senate, by their counsel, Hiram Ketchum, Esq. The 
petitioners were also heard at the same time before the same committee, 
by their counsel, James W. M'Keon, and Wright Hawkes, Esqrs. The 
committee subsequently reported a bill to the Senate, in conformity with 
the recommendation of the Secretary of Stale, which bill, after an ani- 
mated debate, was postponed, by a vote of the Senate, to the second 
Tuesday of January next, by a majority of o?ie. Many of the senators, 
however, who voted for the postponement, stated, that they did so, in 
order that they might have opportunity for obtaining more information on 
the subject, and not from any particular objection to the general features of 
the bill. 

Mr. Ketchum's speech before the Committee, was elaborately reported, 
and published in the daily papers in the city of New- York, on or about 
the 10th of June instant, and the able speeches of Messrs. M'Keon and 
Hawkes not having been reported, the Right Rev. Dr. Hughes undertook 
and delivered before a crowded and overflowing audience, on the evenings 
of the 16th, 17th, and 21st of June instant, a conclusive refutation of Mr. 
Ketchum's argument. The Bishop adopted this viva voce mode of review, 
in order to save the expenditure of time and labor, which would be neces- 
sarily attendant upon a written reply. The speech will, therefore, be 
found to exhibit all the freedom and freshness of an extemporaneous 
address ; a circumstance which will not be found to detract in any manner 
from its force or interest. 

The speech of Bishop Hughes was specially reported for the New- York 
Freeman's Journal, in the most full and accurate manner; and for greater 
convenience, and to preserve it in a more permanent shape, it is also 
published in the present pamphlet form. 

New-York, June, 1841. 



SPEECH 

OF THE 

RIGHT REVEREND DR. HUGHES, 

ON THE SUBJECT 

OF 

COMMON SCHOOL EDUCATION. 



Public notice having been given in the daily papers of the city, that 
Bishop Hughes would, on the evening of Wednesday, the 16th of 
June, commence a Review and Refutation of the argument which 
was made by Hiram Ketchum, Esq., before a Committee of the 
Legislature, at Albany, in opposition to the Bill and Report of the 
Secretary of State, on the subject of Common School Education in 
the city of New York, a very large and respectable assemblage con- 
vened at half-past seven o'clock, on that evening, at Carroll Hall, to 
hear the address of the Bishop. 

The Hon. Luther Bradish, Lieutenant-Governor, and several Se- 
nators of the State, who were then in attendance, in the city of New 
York, as members of the Court for the Correction of Errors, were 
amongst those present. 

At the hour, specified in the notice, the meeting was organised 
by the appointment of Thomas O'Connor, Esq., as chairman, and 
Bernard O'Connor, Esq., Secretary. 

Right Rev. Bishop Hughes then rose and spoke as follows : — 
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, The subject of education is one 

which at this time agitates more or less every civilized nation. 

If we look across the ocean we find it the subject of discussion 



in France — in Prussia — in Holland — in Belgium — in Ireland — 
and even in Austria. It is not surprising, then, that this sub- 
ject, which has but lately attracted the attention of governments, 
and of nations, should become one of deep and absorbing interest. 
But of all these nations there is, perhaps, not one which has placed 
education on that basis on which it is destined successfully, in 
the end, to repose. 

In countries in which the inhabitants profess the same reli- 
gion, whatever that religion may be, the subject is deprived of 
many of its difficulties. But in nations in which there is a va- 
riety of religious creeds, it has hitherto been found one of the 
most perplexing of all questions, to devise a system of education, 
which should meet the approbation of all. This subject has 
engaged the attention of our own government. In every State 
of the Union it has already been acted upon more or less 
fully. And in all these instances whether we regard Europe, or 
regard this country, we find that there is not a solitary instance 
in which religion, or religious instruction in a course of education, 
has been proscribed, with the exception of the city of New York. 
And this proscription of religion in this city is not an act of 
public authority. There is no statute authorising such an act; it 
has been the result rather of an erroneous construction put upon a 
statute, and which has been acquiesced in, rather than approved, 
for the last sixteen years. In the operation of that system, Ca- 
tholics felt themselves virtually excluded from the benefits of 
education. Very shortly after that construction of the law was 
adopted, they felt themselves obliged to proceed in the best way 
that their poverty would allow for the education of their child- 
ren. And whilst they have been taxed with the other citizens, 
up to the present hour they have received no benefit from the 
system supported by that taxation ; but on the contrary, after 
having contributed what the law required, have been obliged to 
throw themselves back upon their own resources, and provide, 
as well as they might, the means of educating their children. 

We have, from time to time, complained of this state of things. 
It has frequently been broughtbefore the notice of the public. A So- 
ciety — professedly the friend of education — having exercised su- 
preme control over the whole question, we had no resource but 
to apply to that tribunal, which the law had authorised to use its 
discretion in distributing the money set apart for the purposes of 
education. We always insisted, in good faith, that the object — 
the benevolent object of this government was the education of 
the rising generation, and we never conceived that the question 
of religion, or no religion, had entered into the minds of those phi- 
lanthropic public men who first established this system for the 
diffusion of knowledge. We applied, as I have remarked, at dif- 
ferent times, to the tribunal to which allusion has been already 
made, and did so even till a very recent period, because before 
we could apply to the legislature of the State, it was requisite 
to comply with the forms prescribed, and that we should be first 
rejected by the Common Council of this city, to whom the State 



legislature had delegated the discretionary power to be exereised 
in the premises. That course was regarded necessary, and we 
adopted it. The result was as ive anticipated — denial of our re- 
quest — and then it was that we applied to the legislature of the 
State — submitted to them the grievances under which we labor- 
ed, in the full confidence that there we should find a remedy. 

Both before the Common Council and the Senate of this 
State, the means, which have been taken to defeat the proper 
consideration of our claims, have been such as we could not have 
anticipated in a country, where the rights of conscience are re- 
cognised as supreme. The test has been put, not as to whether 
we were proper subjects for education, but whether we were 
Catholics ! And in the course of the examination on which I am 
about to enter I shall have occasion to show, that from the be- 
ginning to the end, the one objeet of the members of the Public 
School Society has been to convince the public, that we were 
Catholics, and they, it would appear, calculate as the conse- 
quence, that if we were Catholics, then we had no right to obtain 
redress, or hope for justice. 

In the course of my remarks, I shall be obliged to refer to dis- 
tinctions in religion, the introduction of which into the discus- 
sion of this question, is ever to be much regretted ; I shall have 
to speak of Catholics and of Protestants, and when I do so, let it 
be understood, that I do not volunteer in that, but the course pur- 
sued by that Public School Society, has imposed upon me the 
necessity to refer to these religious distinctions, and in doing so 
I trust I shall be found to speak of those who differ from me in 
matters of religion with becoming respect. I am not a man of 
narrow feelings— I am attached sincerely and conscientiously 
to the faith which I profess, but I judge no man for professing 
another. In the whole of my intercourse with Protestants, my 
conduct has been such they will be ready to acknowledge, in Phi- 
ladelphia an* elsewhere, that I am the last man to be accused of 
bigotry. But I feel that I should be unworthy of that estimation 
— that the denomination to which I belong would be unworthy 
of sustaining that position, which they are ambitious to occupy 
in the opinion of their fellow-citizens of other creeds, if they 
were to submit to the insult added to the injury inflicted on 
them by these men. I, for my own part, feel indignant at the recent 
attempt made to cast odium upon us, and our cause, and it is be- 
cause that turns entirely on the question of religion, that I shall be 
obliged to speak of Catholics and of Protestants, and refer to 
those distinctions which should never have been introduced. 

Before taking up the report of the Secretary of State, I shall 
refer briefly to the conclusion of the discussion before the Com- 
mon Council. There we had, as you will recollect, legal gentle- 
men, and reverend gentlemen, advocates of the Public School 
Society, who had studied the question in all its bearings — volun- 
teers andassociates, and colleagues on the same side, and through- 
out that debate, the ground taken by them was, that if our pe- 
tition were granted, favors would be conferred on us as a reli 



gious denomination, tending to that -gainst which all the friends 
of liberty should guard — a union of church and state. So long 
as that idea was honestly entertained by these gentlemen, I could 
respect their zeal in opposing us. But that idea has disap- 
peared, and yet their opposition has become more inveterate than 
ever. 

The very last sentence of the speech of Mr. Ketchum before 
the Common Council of the City of New York, was a declaration 
that this Society, so far from desiring a collision of this kind 
with us, were men of peace, to whom even the moral friction of 
the debate was quite a punishment — that for them it would be 
a relief if our system of education were assimilated in its exter- 
nal aspect to that of the State. I will read his own words : — 

Now, perhaps the gentleman may ask, if the system is to be changed, that we 
should resort to the same course as is pursued in the country, where the people 
elect their own commissioners and trustees. But if we do, the schools must be 
governed on the same principles as these, and the only difference will be ir the 
managers. And it' it is to come to that I am sure these Trustees will be very 
willing, lor it is to them a source of great vexation to be compelled to carry on 
this controversy for such a period. 

They are very unwilling to come here to meet their fellow-citizens in a some- 
what hostile manner. They have nothing to gain, for the soeiety is no benefit to 
them, and they give days and weeks of their time, without recompense, to the 
discharge of the duties of their trust. 

I shall not now praise that Society. I have more than once 
given my full assent to eulogiums on their zeal and assiduity j 
but Mr. Ketchum praises them and they praise themselves, and 
at this period of the controversy they are entitled to no praise 
from the thousands and thousands of the poor neglected children 
of New York, whom their narrow and bigoted views have ex- 
cluded from the benefits and blessings of education. 

I shall now, before proceeding farther, take up the report of 
the Secretary of State, and commence with that portion of it in 
which he gives a brief sketch of the origin of this Society : — 

" The Public School Society was originally incorporated in 1S05, by chapter 
108 of the laws of that session, which is entitled " An act to incorporate the 
society instituted in the city of New York, for the establishment of a free school 
for the education of poor children, who do not belong to, or are not provided for by 
any religious society." In 1808 its name wasalteied to " The Free School Society 
of New York ;" and its powers were extended " to all children who are the pro- 
per subjects of a gratuitous education." By chap. '2:~> of the laws of 1826 its narrii' 
was changed to " Ths Public School Society of New York ;" and the trustees' 
were authorised to provide for the education of all children ot' New York, not 
otherwise provided for, " whether such children be or be not the proper subjects 
of gratuitous education ;" and to require from those attending the schools, a mo- 
derate compensation ; but no child to be refused admission on account of inability 
to pay. 

"Thus by the joint operation of the acts amending the charter of the sociey, 
of the statutes in relation to the distribution of the school moneys, and ot the 
ordinance of the Common Council, designating the schools of the society as the 
principal recipients of those moneys, the control of the public education of the 
city of New York, and the disbursement, of nine-tenths of the public moneys 
raised and apportioned for schools, were'vested in this corporation. It is a per- 
petual corporation, and there is no power reserved by the legislatuie, to repeal or 



modify its charter. It consists of members who have contributed to the funds 
of the society ; and according to the provisions of the last act, the payment often 
dollars constitutes the contributor a member for life. The members annually 
choose fifty trustees, who may add to their number fifty more." 

He goes on to describe its different acts, by which its name and 
other attributes were changed, until from being a Society to take 
charge of the children that were not provided for by any religious 
society, they came to have the control of the whole system of education 
in New- York. The Report informs us, that the members of the 
Public School Society are so by virtue of a subscription of ten 
dollars — that they elect fifty trustees — that these fifty trustees have a 
right to appoint fifty others, and then the number is completed — that 
the City Council are members cx-officio, and this will, perhaps, go a 
great way in explaining the unwillingness of the Common Council 
to grant our petition. 

The Society were so constituted, that when we went before the Com- 
mon Council, we virtually went before a Committee of the Society. 

In this state of things, the Governor of this State, with a patriot- 
ism and benevolence that entitle his name to the respect of every 
man that has regard for humane feeling and sound and liberal 
policy, declared for a system that would afford a good common 
education to every child. And though I have never before spoken 
in public the name of that distinguished officer of the State, I do 
now from my heart award to him my warmest thanks, and those of 
the community to which I belong, for the stand he has taken on this 
subject. An attempt has been made to victimize him because he 
favoured Catholics — he dared to manifest a humane and liberal feel- 
ing towards foreigners. He survived that shock however, and a 
recent excellent document from him, shewing that he is not any 
longer a candidate for public favour, authorizes me to say in this place, 
that every man who loves his country and the interests of his race, no 
matter what may be his politics, will cordially render the tribute of 
esteem and praise to that Governor Seward. 

[The Chairman had, on taking his place, requested the meeting to 
refrain from interrupting the Right Rev'd. Speaker, or giving any de- 
monstrations of applause, but here they could not restrain their feel- 
ings, and testified their concurrence in the sentiments of the Bishop 
in reference to Governor Seward, by a loud and enthusiastic burst of 
applause.] 

Governor Seward knew too well, — Bishop Hughes continued, — the 
deep seated prejudices of a large portion of the community not to feel, 
that he had nothing to gain by being the advocate of justice to Catholics. 
But whatever may be that distinguished statesman's future history — 
whatever his situation — however much thwarted and opposed, and per- 
chance for a moment partially defeated by those who call themselves the 
friends of education, it will be glory enough for him to have inscribed 
upon his monument, that whilst Governor of New- York, he wished to 
have every child of that noble State endowed and adorned in mind 
and intellect, and morals, with the blessings of education. (Renewed 
cheers.) 

When, therefore, we presented, as every oppressed portion of the 



10 

community has a right to do, our grievances to the honourable Legis- 
lature of the State, these gentlemen, who are represented by Mr. 
Ketchum through a speech of nine mortal columns — as the humble 
almoners of the public charity — these men who are burdened with 
their load of official duty, — which they are willing, Mr. Ketchum 
says, to put off — pursue us thither with unabated hostility. We sup- 
posed that the Public School Society would acquiesce in the justice of 
the plan of the Secretary. No! these humble men, all zeal for the 
cause of education, enter the halls of legislation with a determined 
spirit of opposition to us, which is, perhaps, unparallellcd, considering 
the circumstances under which they acted. 

One of the most difficult points in treating with these gentlemen, 
is to ascertain, in what particular situation, and under what particular 
circumstances, their responsibility may be discovered. They are, it 
is said, but agents, they are wealthy and powerful — have every advan- 
tage in opposing humble petitioners as we are, and with all these ad- 
vantages they presented themselves there — not to dispute the justice 
of our claims, nor the correctness of the ground on which the honor- 
able Secretary placed the question before the Senate, — but to appeal, 
even in the minds of Senators, to whatever they might tind there 
of prejudice against the Catholic religion, and the foreigner and the 
descendants of the foreigner. 

One of the documents of which they made use, was published in 
the "Journal of Commerce." This question had been in the Society 
made the special order of the day for, I think, Friday, the 20th of 
May. In the "Journal of Commerce" of the previous day, there 
was published a most calumnious article, full of all those tiaditions 
against our religion which the minds of the uneducated portion of some 
of those denominations inherit, and the Agent of the Public School 
|Society sent, as we should understand, to represent justice and truth 
between citizens of the same country, is found distributing this paper 
all over the desks of the Senators! On that very day it was supposed 
that the vote on this very question would be taken, and the agent of the 
Public School Society is found supplying the Senators — for I have a 
copy of the papers thus furnished, with the member's name written at 
the top, and the article referred to marked with black lines, so that 
there could be no overlooking it — with an article containing a mock 
excommunication — a burlesque invented by Sterne, and inserted in 
his Tristram Shandy, but quoted by the Public School Society — for I 
hold it to be their act till they disclaim it — as a part of our creed, and 
made the ground of a sneer at the Secretary; "These are precious 
principles to be preserved in the consciences of your petitioners!" 
Religious prejudice will have its reign in the world. But it is a low 
feeling. Especially is it a low feeling in a country, in the fundamen- 
tal principles of whose government and laws the great father of our 
liberties insisted, that conscience and religion should be ever free, and 
be regarded as above all law. There was to be no toleration, for that 
implied the power not to tolerate — the word was therefore excluded 
from the language of American Jurisprudence. And that being the 
case, it was painful to find an honorable body of men as the members 
of the Public School Society are regarded to be, employing such a 



11 

means of approaching the Senate of New- York — that Senate to which 
Justice, if she found not a resting place upon the Globe, like the dove 
to the ark, might return, and expect every hand to be stretched out to 
receive her. (Loud applause.) 

It' they deny that they approached the Senate with that document — 
too vile and filthy to be read in this audience — but if any gentleman 
has the curiosity to see it, here (holding up a volume of Tristram 
Shandy,) here he may read it word for word — let them call their agent 
to account. We will not let them rob us of our reputation. We 
stand ambitious to be considered worthy of membership in the great 
American family; let them not after depriving us of the benefit 
of our taxes, destroy our reputation ! 

I will now, after this introduction, take up the remonstrance of 
the Society. It is impossible for me not to feel indignant w.'~en I 
think how these high-minded men have treated us, when I recol- 
lect how this same gentleman, who acted as their agent and 
distributed that calumnious paper, was once a candidate for 
office, and gladly received the signatures of Catholics. And 
this was the recompense he offered. 

I know not by whom this " Remonstrance" was drawn up. I 
know not whether all the members of the Board of Trustees 
approved of it; but if they did, I trust there were no Catholics 
present. In page 3, of this "Remonstrance," which is signed 
by the President, " Rob't. C. Cornell," we find the following 
declaration introductory to the subject : — 

" The Legislature therefore, in 1S13, when the first distribution was made, very 
naturally appropriated the amount apportioned to this city to these schools, in the 
ratio of the number of children taught in each. This mode of distribution con- 
tinued until 18-24, when the subject was again brought before the Legislature by 
the jealousies, disputes, and difficulties, which had arisen among the recipients, 
and the conflicting parties presented themselves at Albany for the purpose of sus- 
taining their respective claims." 

Now, in all the foregoing applications — in all the Reports made by 
Committees of the Common Council, you will find, that there has not 
been one in which the subject of religion was not referred to as the 
ground of the refusal of our claims — in which it was not assumed, 
that the laws were opposed to giving education money — the Public 
School Fund, or any portion of it, to any religious denomination. 
This principle, it has been pretended, and the disputes among the 
sects, led to the alteration of the law in 1S24. But if we refer back to 
the memorial proceeding from this Society itself, we will find, that no 
such thing existed at the time. We find, that Mr. Leonard Bleecker 
sent a memorial at that very period, 1S24, in which he says: 

" It will not be denied, in this enlightened age, that the education of the poor 
is enjoined by our holy religion, and is therefore, one of the duties of a Christian 
church. Nor is there any impropriety in commiiting the school fund to the hands 
of a religious society, so long as they are confined in the appropriation of it, to an 
object not necessarily connected, or intermingled with the other concerns of th« 
church, as for instance, to ihe payment of teachers, because the state is sure in this 
case, that the benefits of the fund, in the way it designed to confer them, will be 
reaped by the poor. But the objection to the section, sought to he repealed, is, 
that the surplus monies, after the payment of teachers, is vested in the hands of 
the trustees of a religious society, -siid mingled with its other funds, to be appro- 
priated to the erection of buildings under the control of the trustees, which buildj 



12 

ings may, and in all probability will, be used for other purposes than school 
houses." 

Here was the ground taken, and yet we hear these gentlemen before 
the Common Council say, it was on account of constitutional difficul- 
ties and religious differences ; whereas, it was simply because the 
money had been used for an improper purpose. 

In page 5 of this " Remonstrance," this Society takes the ground, 
in opposition to the view of its being a monopoly, and a close corpo- 
ration, which it in fact is, that the same objection might be urged 
against hospitals, asylums for the blind, the insane, and the mute, dis- 
pensaries, and houses of refuge ; and they institute a comparison 
between these institutions and the public schools. 

Now, as to the fact that the Public School Society is a close corpo- 
ration, they themselves do not deny, that all citizens are excluded except 
those who can afford to pay $10 for membership. They do not deny 
that, but justify it on the ground, that inasmuch as these are corporations 
for the management of such institutions as I have named, the same 
reason exists for the constitution of a corporation for the direction of 
the public schools. And where then, pray, are the rights with which 
nature and nature's God have invested the parents of these children ? 
Pray, are they who are held competent to decide on the gravest ques- 
tions affecting the interests of the nation, unworthy to have a voice in 
the education of their own children 1 And must they resign that to a 
corporation responsible neither to them nor to the public in any formal 
way] And, pray, are the people of New York lunatics, that they must 
have acorporation of keepers appointed over them 1 If the doctrine of this 
" memorial" be correct, they are to be so considered. But there is this 
difference : they pay taxes for education, and they have a right to a 
voice and a vote in the manner in which their money is to be expended. 
If the people are to be treated as lunatics, mutes, or inmates of the 
House of Refuge, then the argument of the Public School Society is a 
good one. I think the comparison instituted in the " Remonstrance" 
utterly fails. I cannot dwell longer upon it. 

I now come to a charge made against the petitioners : — 

"At one time it was declared ' the public school system in the city of New 
York is entirely favorable to the Sectarianism of infidelity, and opposed only to 
that of positive Christianity ;' that ' it leaves the will of the pupil to riot in the 
fierceness of unrestrained lusts,' and is ' calculated to make bad and dangerous 
citizens.' " 

Now, it is true, that we did view the Society as being opposed to re- 
ligion. There can be no doubt of that. But if that be true, it is 
equally true, that the evidence on »vhich we built that conclusion was 
furnished by themselves. And how? In every report of theirs it 
appears, that if any thing like a religious society presented itself, that 
character was enough to decide them in resisting its application. You 
will riud this evidenced in their vindication and defence, both by Mr. 
Sedgwick and Mr. Ketchum. They contended that what they meant 
by religious instruction, was not religious instruction, and so it may 
be proper for me to enter a little into the examination of the meaning 
of these words. 

When the Trustees make the religious character of a Society the 
ground of denying them a portion of their funds, what is it that consti- 



13 

tutes the objection'? They do not decide against the infidel, for it 
seems if the applicants had divested themselves of a religious character — 
if men of no religious profession, of no belief in a God or a future 
state, had presented themselves, no objection would be made, and on 
their own premises the Trustees would be obliged to concede to their 
request. What, then, was the reason of the refusal, except the religi- 
ous character of the applicants ? And had we not fair ground here for 
inferring, that they are opposed to religion ? Examine their Reports. 
Here is one : a Report of the Committee on Arts, Sciences, and 
Schools, of the Board of Assistants, on appropriating a portion of the 
School Money to religious societies for the support of schools. This 
is Document, No. SO, and at page 389 we read as follows : — 

" The amount of one hundred and seven thousar.d dollars and upwards, as here- 
inbefore stated, has been raised by annual tax in this city, for purposes of a purely 
civil and secular character." 

Well, if the education is to be purely "civil and secular," is religion 
mingled with it at all? And if religion is not to be mingled with it at all, 
then had we not a right to infer from their own document, that they 
were opposed to religion, and brought up the children without any 
knowledge of their responsibility to God, or of a future life, or of any 
of those great principles of religion on which the very security of society 
depends? Were we not justified in this inference? They refused our 
application, because we professed religion ; and had we not a right to 
keep our children from the influence of a system of education that at- 
tempted to make a divorce between literature — that is, such literature 
as is suited for the infant mind — and religion, and to give instruction 
of a "purely civil and secular character," for which, we are told, 
$107,000 had been expended? How, I ask, can Mr. Cornell stand 
up and deny our charge, when such indisputable evidence of its truth 
is presented by their own documents ? 

Did Mr. Cornell, when they defeated us, find fault with the Commit- 
tee of the Assistant's Board, because they charged the Society with 
excluding religion from education ? No ! No ! Enough it was, that 
religious societies should be defeated, and that they should continue to 
wield their complex monopoly. No matter that they were charged 
with having no religion — no matter at all, that their education was then 
described as "purely civil and secular." 

This document goes on : — 

'• The appropriation of any part of that sum to the support of schools in which 
the religious tenets of any sect are taught to any extent" — 

Well, if you excluded the tenets of all sects, you excluded all religion, 
because there is no religion except what is included in the tenets of 
sects. I defy you to teach the first principles of religion without teach- 
ing the tenets of sectarianism ! Then it was, on the faith of their own 
documents, that we charged on them the character which they had 
assumed, on the strength of which they had successfully op posed, one 
after another, all the denominations who reverence religion. 
The document proceeds : — 

— " would be a legal establishment of one denomination of religion over another - 
would conflict with all the principles and purposes of our free institutions, and 
would violate the very letter of that part of our constitution which so emphatically 



14 

declares that ' The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and woiship, 
without discrimination or preference, shall for ever be allowed in this state to all 
mankind.' By granting a poition of the School Fund to one sect to the exclusion 
of others, a ' preference' is at once created, a ' discrimination' is made, and the 
object of this great constitutional guarantee is defeated ; taxes are imposed for the 
support of religion, and freedom of conscience, if not directly trammelled and con- 
fined, is not left in the peifect and unshackled state which our systems of govern- 
ment were intended to establish and perpetuate. No difference can be perceived 
in principle between the taxing of the people of England for the support of a church 
establishment there, and the taxing of the people of New York for the support of 
schools in which the doctrines of religious denominations are taught." 

And what are we to infer from this, except that they do not teach 
religion at all ? But they have changed their tactics. For they have, be it 
remembered, two strings to their bow — one for those who have religion, 
and one for those who have not, and so we actually find that whilst before 
the Common Council of New York they are destitute of religion, and 
give a " purely civil and secular education," at Albany they can be in 
favor of religion ! 

But there is still further evidence on this point. In page 18 of the 
Report of the Debate before the Common Council, we have the expla- 
nation of Mi. Ketchum, and it was one of the nicest managed points 
imaginable. Indeed, I could not but admire the sagacity of that gen- 
tleman and his associate, Mr. Sedgwick, in steering so adroitly between 
the teaching of religion and the not teaching of it, so that they taught 
it, but yet you must not call it religion ! We put the gentlemen be- 
tween the horns of a dilemma ; we said if you do not teach religion, 
then you are chargeable with making our common schools seminaries 
of infidelity ; if you do teach it, then you do exactly what you say ex- 
cludes religious societies from a right to participate in the fund! But 
these gentlemen, with great skill and critical acumen, and a little so- 
phistry, were able to steer, by a line invisible to my mind, between the 
horns of the dilemma. 

In describing the different kinds of instruction, Mr. Sedgwick 
says : — 

" But, beyond that, there is still another branch of instruction which is properly 
called religious, and it is because those two phrases — ' religious' and ' morn I' — 
have been used occasionally without an accurate apprehension of their significa- 
tion, that the documents of the trustees have been misconstrued. But when the 
term ' moral' education is used, it only means that education which instructs the 
children in those fundamental tenets of duty which are the basis of all religion." 

That is to say, you build the roof before you lay the foundation. 
For whence, I ask, will men get their knowledge of duty, if not based 
on a substratum of religion? But here, morality, so called, is made the 
basis of religion. Well, let us apply this to the schools, and see whether 
any Christian parent would submit to have his children placed under 
such a system. 

There is a child at one of these schools — they tell him not to lie, 
but children are inquisitive, and he asks, " Why should I not lie ?" 
You must answer, "because God abominates a lie" — there you teach 
religion ! You explain the reason why the child should not lie, that 
religion requires, and affords the reason of, the performance of the 
duty — not that the duty is the basis of religion. It is not enough to 
tell the child you are to speak the truth, and when you know and fulfH 
your duty, then you may learn, that there is a God to whom you are re- 



15 

sponsible. Washington himself, in his Farewell Address, cautioned 
the nation against the man who would attempt to teach morality without 
religion. (Cheers.) He says : 

" Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion 
and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute 
of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, 
these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally 
with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not 
trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it be simply asked, 
wheie is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious 
obligations desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts 
of justice? And let us icitk caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be 
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of re- 
fined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both foibid 
us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." 

Had we not, then, I would ask very respectfully, a right, when every 
petition had been rejected, on the ground, that the petitioners had a re- 
ligious belief, to infer that religion formed no part of their system of 
education, and that the consequence, which we charged upon them, 
and that Mr. Cornell repudiated with so much horror, inevitably and 
justly followed ; namely, that the Public School Society was favorable 
to the sectarianism of infidelity 1 

I now go on to show what the Public School Society boast of 
having done in our regard. They had offered, in reply to our ob- 
jections to passages in their books, — as, for instance, where it 
was stated that " John Huss was a zealous Reformer, but trusting 
to the deceitful Catholics, he was taken by them and burned at the 
stake," — to expunge such objectionable passages when they were 
pointed out. They said, "Bishop, we submit our books to you, 
and if you will have the goodness to point out any objectionable 
passages, we will expunge them." Well, certainly there was 
something very plausible and apparently very liberal in this offer. 
But when the matter was pressed, it was found that all this was 
merely the expression of individuals — there was no guarantee that 
the books would be amended. Weeks, months might be spent in 
examining the books, and then the approbation of the Board was 
necessary in order to effect the alteration. Did they say that it 
should be given"? Never. 

I pass now to another point; for observe, I do not at all think 
myself called on to say one word in vindication of the able, and 
eloquent, and satisfactory report of the Secretary of State (cheers). 
That is not necessary. The language of that document will be 
its own vindication when the petty sophistries raised against it 
shall have been long forgotten ; for be assured, gentlemen, that 
whatever may be the temporary opposition to any public measure, 
from the moment that there is discovered to be inherent in it — of 
its essence — a principle of justice and equality, its ultimate tri- 
umph is certain, and all the opposition which it encounters will 
have no more effect on it than that of the breeze, which passes 
over the ocean — ruffling its surface, but destroying nothing of the 
mighty and majestic element which it seems to fret and disturb. 
(Cheers.) 

I take up this, then, not to vindicate the report, but rather in 



16 

reference to the insulting attempt, as 1 will call it, to deprive Ca- 
tholics of the free exercise of their own consciences, and the re- 
spect and esteem of their fellow-citizens. In reasoning on the 
subject, observe the course that is taken by Mr. Cornell. He en- 
ters into a comparison between the schools of the Public School 
Society and ours — ours, supported in poverty, the humblest that 
may be, but still supported in a way sufficient to show our deter- 
mination not to give up our rights, or relinquish the maintenance 
and defence of a sound and patriotic principle. But this gentle- 
man compares these our schools with theirs — on which more than a 
million of the public money has been expended, whilst we have been 
virtually shut out from all benefit from the public funds, not by any 
law of the State, but by a vicious interpretation of the law. He 
requires us to furnish as perfect a system as they do with the ex- 
penditure of a million of dollars ! He is reasoning with the Sec- 
retary, telling him, in effect, that we are troublesome and design- 
ing people, and he says: — 

But having in view the stringency with which the same party insisted on the 
necessity of religious in juxtaposition with secular education, and the warmth with 
which they denounced the Public School system when they saw fit to charge it 
with excluding religion, and particularly when reference is had to their avowed 
dogma, that there is no hope of salvation to those not of the Roman Catholic 
Church — which dogma is now taught in their schools. 

I thank God that the Catholics — the long-oppressed of three 
hundred years, during which the ear of the world was poisoned 
with calumnies against them — have now liberty of speech, and 
ability to exercise it, and I call Mr. Cornell to account for what he 
has here written, and to which he has affixed his name. He 
says : — 

When reference is had to their avowed dogma, that there is no hope of salva- 
tion to (hose not of the Roman Catholic Church — which dogma is now taught in 
their schools. 

The Catholics " avow" every dogma of their religion — but the 
two statements employed by Mr. Cornell are bothfalse. It never 
was and never can be a dogma of ours, that there is " no hope of 
salvation to those not of the Roman Catholic Church." Neither 
is that dogma taught in our schools. This false statement must 
be accounted for by Mr. Cornell's ignorance of our doctrine on 
the one hand, and on the other, his disposition to injure us. I 
call upon him — I arraign him before the people of New-York, and 
the Senate whose confidence he has attempted to abuse, to prove 
his statement, or else to retract it. 

And here it may be proper for me to explain something of this 
matter, for I know that in the minds of Protestants, almost uni- 
versally, there is that idea; and that in the theological language 
of the Catholic Church there is apparent ground for entertaining 
it. But at the same time I do know, that that language, properly 
understood and fairly interpreted, does not imply the dogma im- 
puted to us by Mr. Cornell. 

It is very true that we believe, that out of the true Church of 
Christ there is no salvation — first proposition. 

It is true that we believe the Catholic Church to be the true 
Church of Christ — secSnd proposition. 



17 

It is very true that notwithstanding these propositions, there is no 
dogma of our creed which teaches that a Protestant may not hope 
to be saved, or may not goto heaven. Now how is this explained? 
In this way — When we speak of the Church, we mean the Church 
as Christ and his apostles did — in the sense, that the ordinary 
means for the salvation of mankind are the doctrines and institu- 
tions which Jesus left on earth, which have all descended in the 
Church with our history and our name. This we believe, but we 
do not believe, that God has deprived himself, because he institu- 
ted these things, of the means of saving whom he will. We do 
not believe that on this account the power of the Almighty is 
abridged. Hence it is consistent with our dogmas to believe that 
God, who is a just Judge, as well as a merciful Father, will not 
condemn any one for involuntary error. Their judgment will be 
individual ; they were externally out of the Church, but was it by 
their own will, or the accident of their birth and education in a false 
religion % Did they believe that religion to be true in good faith, 
and in the simplicity of their hearts 1 — were they ready to receive 
the light and grace of truth as God might offer it to them! Then, 
in that case, though not belonging to the Catholic Church by ex- 
ternal profession, they belonged to it by their internal disposition. 

Consequently we are nut authorised to deny hope of salvation to 
those not of the Catholic church, unless so far as the errors in which 
they have been involved have been voluntary and culpable on their 
part. And thisis no new doctrine, as our opponents would have 
seen had they consulted the writings of the highest authorities in our 
church. St. Thomas Aquinas — one of the greatest minds that ever 
contributed to enlighten the human race, as Protestants themselves 
acknowledge — writing in the eleventh or twelfth century, speaks of a 
man who is not even a Protestant, but a pagan — a man who has 
never heard of Christ or of Christianity, and he, supposing that man to 
be moral — sincere — acting according to the best lights God has given 
him, tells us, God would sooner send an angel to guide him to the way 
of salvation than that such an one should perish. Such is the senti- 
ment of St. Thomas Aquinas expressed in his works, and his works 
are approved of by our church. How then can Mr. Cornell, or any 
other individual say, that we enter into judgment respecting those who 
die out of the pale of our church ? I publicly call upon Mr. Cornell 
to retract or qualify his official statement. 

Sentiments according with these I have quoted from St. Thomas 
Aquinas, I have myself preached in the cathedral of New York, and 
similar ones have been abundantly proclaimed by others, and amongst, 
them I would mention a very distinguished French bishop — then the 
Abbe Fressinous. In the third volume of his Conferences, he has 
one special sermon on the subject of exclusive salvation, and he shows 
that of all Christian denominations there is no one more abounding 
in charity on this point than the Catholic church. The same expla- 
nations are to be found in the writings of Bossuet, St. Francis of 
Sales, and St. Augustine.* With these facts well known how did 

* Salvation out of the Church. — In concluding this simple and brief view 



18 

those gentlemen venture to take advantage of their, and our relative 
situations, and calumniate us when we had no opportunity of." repel- 
ling the unfair attack? 

Besides, Mr. Cornell says, — "which is now taught in their schools." 
I deny the truth of that statement, and demand his authority. 

But now, would it, think you, be improper on my part, considering 
that Mr. Cornell is not present, to imitate some of the liberties which 
he has taken with us in our absence ? 

Throughout this document he has lnbored to prove, that we are Ca- 
tholics, and not only that, but to show what our religion is, though I 
am rather at a loss to imagine where he studied Catholic theology, in 
which if he should persevere, I would suggest to him to consult better 
authorities than the "Journal of Commerce," and "Tristram Shandy." 
(Laughter and cheers.) 

Now, it never occurred to us to ask of what religion is Mr. Cornell, 
and the Public School Society. The whole ground assumed by them 
is, that they are not a " religious society" — well, what are they ? Are 
they an irreligious society? Not at all. They are members of 
churches; and I have taken the pains to ascertain that Mr. Cornell is 
a member of Dr. Spring's church, and if he lectures the Catholics 
would it be very wrong in me to speak of the doctrines of his creed ? 
Let us look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, the rule of Pres- 
byterian dogma, and see whether Mr. Cornell opens the gates of Hea- 
ven to all religious denominations. I quote from the Westminster 
Confession as adopted and amended in the United States, and pub- 
lished by Towar and Hogan, Philadelphia, in 1827. In page 111 it 
is said — 

" The visible church consists of all those throughout the world who profess the 
true religion." 

— So to be a member of the visible church you must "profess" the 
true faith — "together with their children" — happy children ! (A laugh.) 
— "and this is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, the house and 



of the Catholic doctrine, it may be well to state here what is to he correctly un- 
derstood, of that Catholic sentiment, " Out of the Church there is no salva- 
tion." 

" We do not pretend to deny, (says Mr. Bergier,) that there are numbers of 
men born in heresy who by reason of their little light, are in invincible ignorance, 
and consequently excusable before God: these, in the opinion of all judicious 
Divines, ought not to be ranked with heretics." This is the very doctrine of St. 
Augustine, (Epis. 43, ad gloriam et alias, n. 1.) St. Paul tells us, in his Epistle 
to Titus, c. 3, 'A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, 
avoid ; knowing that he that is such a one, is subverted and sinneth, being con- 
demned by his own judgment.' As to those who defend an opinion, either false 
or perverse, without obstinacy, and who have not invented it from a during pre- 
sumption, but received it from their parents after they were seduced and had fallen 
into error, if they diligently and industriously seek for the truth, and if they hold 
themselves ready to embrace it as soon as they shall have found it, such as these 
also are not to be classed with heretics." L. t, de Bapt. contra Donat. c. 4, n. 5. 

"Those who fall with heretics, without knowing it, believing it to be the church 
of Jesus Christ, are in a different case from those who know that the Catholic 
church is spread over the whole whole world." L. 4, c. 1, n. 1. 

" The church of Jesus Christ may have through the power of her spouse, child- 
ren and servants ; if they grow not proud, they snail have part in his inheritance ; 
but if they are proud, they shall remain without." Ibid. c. 1G, n. 23. 



19 

family of God, out of which these is no ordinary possibility 

OF SALVATION." 

Here is another statement of Mr. Cornell : — 

" They are not, merely the incidental remarks of the historian, or extracts from 
the HolyScriptures ' without note or comment,' to which such strong exception 
has been taken in relation to the public schools, but they are such as ever have, 
and in the opinion of your remonstrants, must ever tend, if sustained by tax im- 
posed upon the anathematized portion of the community, to destroy public harmony ; 
and such as would prove any thing rather than a ' social benefit.' " 

Now by using the word "anathematized " he conveys the impres- 
sion that all out of the pale of our church are under our anathema. I 
demand the proof. I have studied our holy religion many a day, but 
never yet have I discovered any such anathema, and I defy Mr. Cor- 
nell to point it out. 

Mr. Cornell goes on to say : — 

"Your remonstrants had supposed that the fact of the Public School Society 
being composed of men professing every variety of religious faith would neu- 
tralize sectarian tendencies and secure it against abuse." 

Now, there is something exceedingly sf>ecious in this, but it is 
indeed a very spurious position. They refuse our application on 
the ground that we are a religious society, and when we then 
charge them with not being a religious society, they repudiate it 
as a stigma on their character. And what is their remedy? 
That they " will neutralize sectarian tendencies by the variety of 
the religions that they introduce." How is this'? They are all 
members of Churches — and that does them honor — but whenever 
they come within the magical circle of their official character, 
then, like negative and positive brought together in just propor- 
tions, they neutralize each other!! Is this really the position 
that these gentlemen assume? How are the Trustees chosen % 
In the most beautiful manner'? One or two Catholics are taken — 
a Universalist — perchance, and so of other denominations, and 
then they say " we are of all religions !" You will find that the 
mass of the Society belong to one sect, of which little or nothing 
is said, and that an odd one is taken from each of the other sects 
to sanctify their acts ! There is a sufficient majority of one 
denomination. There is a tendency and aim which I am not 
unwilling to proclaim — a secret understanding — not so very 
secret either — to the effect that " as there is a large foreign 
population in New- York, and mostly Catholic, our liberties 
would not be safe unless the interests of Catholics, were not 
neutralized in their education. 1 ' We reject that idea with scorn, 
that Catholics have to learn the principles of liberty from them. 
At a period when Protestantism was as little dreamed of 
as steam navigation, Catholics were the schoolmasters to the 
nations of the world, in the principles of liberty. They were 
Catholics who wrung the great charter of English liberty from 
the hands of the tyrant. And was that their first effort in the 
cause of freedom % No. That was only the written recognition 
of their rights, which the encroachments of his predecessors 
had diminished, and having thus secured their rights, they main- 
tained them down to the period of the Reformation, when their 

4 



20 

high and honorable notions of liberty were trampled in the dast 5 , 
and were never restored till the Revolution ; and when that so 
boasted event in the history of England took place, it only recog- 
nized the rights lost at the period of the Reformation, which 
Catholics for centuries before had known and enjoyed. Let 
them not say then that our religion is inimical to liberty. That 
is a reproach which we spurn — which we abominate and abhor? 
We have nothing to learn from them of human liberty. Their 
part is to imitate us, not ours to imitate them ! (Loud applause.) 
If that is the principle referred to, we understood it perfectly 
well, and it is of no use for these gentlemen to moot it for the 
purpose of shewing that our claim should be denied. Was that,, 
indeed, their object T Not at all. But their object was, with 
hands that should have been better employed, to rake up that 
wretched remnant of prejudice against us, and pander to the 
vitiated taste that could relish it. 

We see, then, that so far as this " Remonstrance" is concerned, 
there is not one solitary proposition which should for one moment 
have arrested the mind of the Legislature. The Bill proposed 
by the honorable Secretary of State, contemplated no special 
favour. Much as I honor that distinguished individual, I would 
not esteem him as I do if he had in his Bill proposed anything 
which should have raised us above our fellow-citizens of other 
denominations. But the Bill only places us on an equality with 
others — with that we are satisfied — with nothing less will we 
ever be satisfied. (Loud cheers.) 

But hitherto these gentlemen have assumed various shapes. 
They have viewed with self-complacency the beauty of their 
sys'em, and as for their few schools — few in comparison with 
the number of destitute and unprovided children — I have nothing 
to say against them. I proposed to place our schools under their 
direction, so far as regarded their police and management. But 
I would not permit them to teach our children that Catholics 
were deceitful — that Galileo was put into the Inquisition and 
punished for the heresy that the earth revolved on its own axis 
around the sun. That and similar statements of partizan writers, 
lono- and generally believed, begin to be better understood. Be- 
hind the Anti-Catholic credulity in which they have hitherto been 
entrenched, there is now going on a deeper and sounder spirit of 
criticism, conducted by eminent Protestant as well as Catholic 
writers. At the very time of his trial, his doctrine was held and 
avowed by eminent Cardinals, and the Pope himself declared that 
as a philosophical proposition, it was no heresy. His case is 
entirely misunderstood. 

Galileo's crime was not teaching sound philosophy, but bad 
theology — wishing the Church to declare that his theory was in 
accordance with the Scriptures. For reasons like this I would 
not allow them to mislead our children. But was willing to allow 
the gentlemen the external management of our schools. They, 
however, would have universal rule, or none at all. 

What has been their panacea for all complaints 1 To invite the 



21 

■City Council to visit the Schools! And certainly, I presume, it 
would be impossible to visit their Schools without being satisfied 
with their appearance. But had I been able to have made my 
voice heard in the Senate of the State, when they made the pro- 
position to visit their schools, I should have proposed something 
like an amendment. I would have prayed these Senators, in the 
name of humanity and their country, of all the benevolence that 
beats in the human breast, to visit — not the schools — but the 
lanes and alleys, and obscure resorts of the poor neglected chil- 
dren of New-York, and there see, not how much is done, but 
how much is left undone. These are the portions of the city 
that should be visited. It is utterly impossible, owing to their 
scattered condition, to learn the numbers of children in this city 
who are deprived by these gentlemen of the blessings of educa- 
tion. We who mingle with the people and have the opportunity 
of learning their dislike of this system — that they would no 
more trust their children to it, than to that tyrannical system 
of British mis-government which their fathers knew so well, and 
from which they derived the sad legacy of ignorance and po- 
verty. I refer to the laws which made education a crime in 
Ireland, and which have left the inhabitants of that country the 
•degraded, but unbroken people that they are this day, after a 
persecution of near three hundred years. (Cheers.) 

It is for these poor, neglected, uneducated children, that I 
,plead. Their parents will not send them to the Public School 
whilst constituted as at present, and I approve of their resolution. 
I trust that they never will send their children to schools man- 
aged by men who can send to the Senate of this State a burlesque 
upon our creed, and represent it as a genuine exhibition of our 
faith and principles. Rather will we trust to the kind and mer- 
ciful Providence of God, than voluntarily relinquish a principle 
by which we maintain the right implanted in the breast of every 
parent and secured by the lawe, to have a voice in the education of 
his child. It is these children that should be visited. Then 
would these ihonorable Senators, whom I know to be above 
all these petty prejudices which have been appealed to, do 
justice, and apply a remedy so far as the law would authorize 
them. 

I must now soon conclude my remarks for this evening. I will 
merely refer to the objection of the Society to the Bill of Mr. 
Spencer — its tendency to introduce party politics. Every 
thing is held in this country to be in the hands of the people, yet these 
gentlemen, after enjoying a monopoly for sixteen years, think it a 
great misfortune if the tax-payers should be allowed a voice at all in 
the selection of the teachers in the schools which they support, or any 
3hare whatever in their management. 

The next objection to the Bill, is its want of uniformity. Because 
they happen to have school-houses exactly one like the other, and have 
a uniform style of books, the large and liberal, and statesmanlike plan 
•of the honorable Secretary, should be given up because, forsooth, these 
"'humble almoners" pronounce it void >of uniformity! "Humble 



22 

almoners," who after coiling their roots around the Common Council?, 
and making them judges in the cause, go to Albany to defeat our 
claims. Well, they may call themselves "humble almoners" if they 
please, but they remind me very much of the beggar in Gil Bias, who 
when he asked alms always took good care to have his musket ready ! 

I have now gone briefly through this part of the subject, and I ask 
you whether we can have any confidence in men who can stoop to 
such artifices as I have exposed? I call upon them to vindicate them- 
selves from the dishonor of having circulated that document from Tris- 
tram Shandy. It was done by one of their colleagues and their official 
agent, who when charged with it, replied that he had done so under in- 
structions. What instructions? JJid they instruct him ? If not, let 
them say so by a public act. Until they do so, we justly charge them 
with being the traducers of our reputation. I charge them on the 
ground that they are responsible for the act of tneir agent : and they 
should have known better. Gentlemen claiming to be exclusively the 
judges of what is a proper system of education — who held that you are 
unworthy of having any thing to do with the schools of New York — 
should have known that that document was from Tristram Shandy, 
written, I presume, for his amusement, by Mr. Sterne — who though 
numbered amongst the clergy of the Church of England, was believed 
to be an infidel — a man who secretly scoffed at every thing sacred — 
and the working of whose rank imagination is too offensive for the~ 
eye of delicacy. Surely, then, these gentlemen should not have drawn 
weapons from such a source for the purpose of destroying the reputation 
of any class of their fellow-citizens. 

This is not the first occasion on which we have been misrepresented, 
and religious gentlemen whose avovved purpose it is to preach the 
gospel of peace, have taken up the habit of abusing us, and have rung 
the changes on this topie, till in some instances some of their audiences, 
more liberal than they, have left the place disgusted. They remind 
me of a saying of this same Sterne, who when quizzing the credulity 
of the people of England— for he was a great wag — said that occasion- 
ally he was straitened for the price of a dinner, but he could al ways- 
manage to make a good meal of Cheshire cheese; but it also hap*- 
pened, that oftentimes he was in a similar strait in his official capacity, 
and was called on to preach when he had not a word of a sermon 
prepared, and then he took " a fling at Popery." The people 
went away edified and delighted. For this reason, he says, I call 
Popery my "Cheshire cheese!" (Loud laughter.) It seems to me 
that the occupants of half the pulpits of New York are nearly in the 
same predicament, and would die of inanimation, were it not that their 
stock of " Cheshire cheese" is still unexhausted. (Renewed laughter 
and applause.) ♦ 

I think I can safely say, that in none of our churches will you hear 
such abuse. We never touch upon secular affairs ; you will not even 
hear from our pulpits harangues about abolition. We explain and de- 
fend our creed, and, I trust, preach charity and peace and order. But: 
it is not so with those who assail us as I have described, as I will have 
occasion to show when treating of Mr. Ketchum's speech, which I intend 
to do on to-morrow evening. 



23 

The Bishop then concluded, after speaking nearly two hours, and a 
vote of thanks having been passed to the Chairman, the large and at- 
tentive meeting adjourned. 



THURSDAY EVENING. 

The audience on this occasion was still more numerous than on the 
previous evening. Several distinguished Senators, and influential 
gentlemen of other denominations, were present. The meeting was 
organized by the appointment of the same Chairman who presided at 
the former meeting, and at 8 o'clock the Right Rev. Bishop Hughes 
resumed his remarks as follows : — 

The question, gentlemen, which has called us together has had two 
stages of" progress, which must be kept distinct in order to comprehend 
its present position. We have from time to time applied to the Com- 
mon Council of this city for relief, which we knew they had the power 
to grant ; and we had applied, as it were, in an isolated, and, if you 
please, as to appearance, in a somewhat sectarian character. The 
reasons of this will be easily understood, when you reflect that we had 
no intention to disturb the system of education so generally approved 
by our fellow-citizens. Our object was not to destroy that which was 
good for others, if they thought it so, but to find something that might 
be equally good for ourselves. Accordingly we applied as Catholics, 
because it appeared that there were no other denominations whose con- 
sciences suffered under the operation of that system. And we did 
suppose, that these considerations would have had some weight with 
the honorable Council. We might — as we are reproached with not 
having done — we might have interfered with the regulations of these 
schools — asked for a different order of books — required the erasure of 
such and such passages, and the insertion of others. They reproach 
us with not doing so ; but if we had done so, it would, in the first place, 
have been pains thrown away, and in the second place, we might thereby 
have disobliged many of our fellow-citizens of other denominations. 
Without our at all pressing the question upon them farther than observ- 
ing, that even the reading of the Holy Scriptures, according to the 
Protestant version, was looked upon by us as an invasion of our con- 
scientious rights, they took it up as an objection against the reading 
of the Scriptures at all, as if the presence of a Bible within the walls of 
a school was a thing we could not bear. It is needless to say how 
wrong that inference was ; but we did not at all wish to disturb the 
Protestant's approbation of his version of the sacred volume, nor the 
order that seemed so generally approved, and that was the reason of the 
mode of our application. 

In the coutse of my speech therefore, you will understand that we 
did not so apply for relief because we wished to be apart, separate from 
the rest of the community — that it was not because we were exclusive, 
or intolerant, as they have charged upon us ; but because we supposed 



24 

that they would not wish to have their children hear the Catholic version 
of the Bible read ; and, therefore, they had no right to impose on our 
children the hearing of the Protestant version. If that be sectarianism, 
then we plead guilty to the charge, but without feeling and acting so, 
we could not have our consciences simple, f and in their integrity, 
upright towards God. 

When, however, after having gone through the ceremony — for it was 
nothing else — of appearing before the Common Council, and having 
been heard and denied, as a matter of course, when we had gone through 
this ceremony required by the formulary of the law, then indeed we 
threw ourselves on our general rights as citizens, and appealed to that 
tribunal to which we must always look with confidence for the redress 
of every grievance that presses on us in our social condition. Never- 
theless, our opponents followed us there, and fastened upon us the 
character, in which it had been the duty imposed on us by necessity, to 
appear before the Common Council. 

We have had occasion already to point out some evidences of the 
use made of that in the " Remonstrance." You saw with what reck- 
lessness of truth — I am sorry to say — it was charged in that document, 
that we were intolerant — that we taught there was no salvation out of 
the Catholic church, and so forth. There are in that document of the 
Public School Society many other passages requiring examination, 
but as the substance of them is contained in the speech of the learned 
gentleman, who was their official organ before the Senate, I suppose 
that the refutation of the one will be the refutation of both, and there- 
fore I deem it unnecessary to refer farther to that memorial. 

They — that gentleman particularly — referred in the course of the 
debate to a proposition for accommodation, which was made on the 
part of the Society previous to the last decision of the public Council. 
They alleged that nothing could be fairer ; but when we had examined 
that, we found that of not a solitary grievance of which we had com- 
plained did it take notice — not the slightest notice. The whole pro- 
posal was, that they should correct the books, so far their guardianship 
of the rights of conscience — for they are conscience keepers for the 
several sects in this community! — would allow. They would accom- 
modate us by striking out passages insulting and offensive to our 
minds, and injurious to our children. That was all the amount of the 
concession. Then the second proposition was, that they would pur- 
chase from us — they can afford to do so — the only schoolhouse which 
our humble means have enabled us to erect during the sixteen years of 
privation from the benefits of Common School Education. These 
were the only two features that distinguished that offer of accommoda- 
tion. But Mr. Ketchum did not find it convenient to read the propo- 
sitions that we submitted at the same time, and which, candor should 
have acknowledged, removed from us every imputation of being actu- 
ated by sectarian motives, or having in view the appropriation of the 
public money to the propagation of our religion. 

I will now commence with the reading but a small portion of that, 
sufficient however to show you that on this ground, so far as informa- 
tion was concerned they had it, and if with that in their possession 



25 

they cdhcealed the truth, and suppressed it, on their heads be the re- 
sponsibility that attaches to such conduct. 

What is the great difficulty — the legal difficulty? That public 
money cannot be applied to sectarian uses. Very well. We met 
that ; we"said here are propositions that cover our whole ground : — 

"That there shall be reserved to the Managers or Trustees of these schools re- 
spectively, the designation of the teachers to beappointed, who shall be subjected 
to the examination of a Committee of the Public School Society, shall be fully 
qualified for the duties of their appointment, and of unexceptionable moral cha- 
racter; or in the event of the Trustees or Managers failing to present individu- 
as for these situations of that description, then individuals having like qualifica- 
tilons of unexceptionable character, to be selected and appointed by the Public 
School Society, who shall be acceptable to the Managers or Trustees of the 
Schools to which they shall be appointed ; but no person to be continued as a 
teacher in either of the schools referred to against the wishes of the Managers or 
Trustees thereof." 

That was the first proposition, showing them, that so far as the 
teachers were concerned, all we wanted was men in whom we could 
place confidence. The second proposition was : — 

"2d. That the school shall be open at all times to the inspection of any au- 
thorized agent or officer of the city or State government, with liberty to visit the 
same, and examine the books used therein, or the teachers, touching the course 
and system of instruction pursued in the schools, or in relation to any matter con- 
nected therewith." 

So that there was no concealment there, they themselves should be 
the inspectors, and I will say it boldly, that if they had been actuated 
by that deep feeling of humani y for which they claimed credit, they 
would have accepted that proposal to take our children under their 
care, affording to them the same means of gaining future happiness as 
they did to others. 

The document goes on : — 

"The undersigned are willing that, in the superintendence of their schools, 
every specified requirement of any and every law passed by the Legislature of 
the Sta e, or the ordinances ol the Common Council, to guard against abuse in 
the matter of common school education, shall be rigidly enforced and exacted by 
the competent public authorities. 

" They believe that the benevolent object of every such law is to bring the 
means of education within the reach of the child of every poor man, without da- 
maging their religion, whatever it may be, or the religious rights of any such 
child or parent. 

"It is in consequence of what they consider the damagng of their religion and 
their religious rights, in the schools of the Public School Society, that they have 
been obliged to withdraw their children from them. The facts wtikh they have 
already submitted, and which have been more than sustained by the senfments 
uttered on behalf of the society, in the late discussion, prove that they were not 
mistaken. 

"As regards the organization of their schools, they are willing that they should 
be under the same police and regulations as those of the Public School So- 
ciety. Trie same hours, the same order, the same exercises, even the same in- 
spection. 

" But the books to be used for exercises in learning to read or spell, in history, 
geography, and all such elementary knowledge, as could have a tendency to 
ope, ate on their hearis and minds, in reference to their religion, must be, so far 
as Catholic children are concerned, and no farther, such as they shall judge 
proper to put in their hands. But none of their dogmas, nothing against the 
creed of any other denomination shall be introduced." 



26 

t 

Reference is here made to the sentiments uttered by the advocates of 
the Public School Society, in their opposition to our claims before the 
Common Council. Many of my present audience were perhaps 
there, and they can remember what an array of individuals, otherwise 
distinguished by their character — what an array of bigotry and preju- 
dice — and we must say — of profound ignorance, was presented against 
us. One reverend gentleman came there and said in reference to 
our objection respecting the Protestant version of the bible, 
that one of our comments taught " the lawfulness of murder- 
ing heretics." Before the Common Council, I brought that gentle- 
man to account, and I assure you, that considering his grey hairs and 
the respect that is due to age and the sacred character of a minister of 
peace, I felt humbled at beholding the degraded position in which he 
found himself before I had done. He Jiad, however, obtained a copy 
of an old version of the scriptures, published by the Catholic refugees 
in the time of Queen Elizabeth, who wishing to prepare the way for 
an invasion, by the Spanish, wrote a series of notes on the scriptures, 
which they thought would tend to effect that end. So soon, however, 
as these notes became known in England and Ireland, they were 
scouted with horror by all professing the Catholic name. A few copies 
of that version, however, remained lost and forgotten, and an ignorant 
publisher in Cork, thinking to make a profitable speculation, obtained 
one of them, and not knowing, — as was afterwards proved, — the dif- 
ference between it and the authorised version, he undertook to publish 
another edition of it. In the process of publication, however, the 
character of the work became known, and the Arch-Bishop of Dublin, 
forbade the publication. The publisher was ruined, and he com- 
menced a suit, for damages. The matter was referred to in Com- 
mittees of the House of Commons, and of the House of Lords, and 
to all the particulars of the case was, of course, thus given the greatest 
possible publicity. Well, the publisher bein«- deprived of his antici- 
pated sale in Ireland, where the Catholics would not purchase such a 
book, thought that by sending some to this country, people as ignor- 
ant as himself, might purchase them, and thus the work might not prove 
adead loss. In this way, acopy fell into the hands of one of these gentle- 
men, and what did they do? Why, about the very same period that 
"Maria Monk" was published, — and I know not but from the same 
press, — they emitted an edition of this bible, ;n order to excite public 
odium against their Catholic fellow-citizens ! It was then, with a copy 
of that in his hand, that that clergyman came forward to prove, by 
means of that forgery, that we taught the lawfulness of murdering 
heretics. Then, besides that, there was another gentleman, and he, 
in speaking on the subject of these very schools, and offering reasons 
why we should be denied the benefits of education, instituted a com- 
parison — all the otners had with great professions of respect and bene- 
volent feeling for us, said " it was not because we were Catholics," 
that they opposed us, oh ! no, they always qualified it — but he insti- 
tuted a comparison between the religion of Fenelon and Voltaire, and 
with marvellous candor, forgetting the preface, admitted that he op- 
posed us because we were Catholics ! This gentleman said, that if 
he had no alternative he would sooner be of the religion of Voltaire, 



27 

than of that of Fenelon. These are thesentiments to which I allude, and to 
which reference is here made when we say that such sentiments are only 
calculated to strengthen the conviction that our Catholic children, from 
the prejudices against their parentage and religion, had no chance of 
justice in those schools. The Committee to whom was referred an exa- 
mination of the schools, make a report, and in that, after quoting* the 
two propositions, for an accommodation, they take occasion to say": — 

"Your Committee deem it proper to remark, in vindication of the School So- 
ciety, that they were only one of the numerous remonstrants against the prayer 
of the petitioners. Their views were represented at the late discussion before the 
Board only by their legal advisers, Messrs. Sedgwick and Ketchum. The other 
gentlemen who participated in the discuilion represented other bodies, which are 
not in any manner connected with them. Sentiments were uttered by them 
which the School Society do not entertain, and for which they are not justly ac- 
countable." 

So they say, but by whom ? It would go abroad that this was a de- 
claration from the whole body of the Public School Society. I do not 
believe that was the fact, and I have no reason to b Jieve it. Be- 
cause I do know that these gentlemen used, or at least admitted this 
sentiment — this bad sentiment of their associates — for the purpose of 
defeating us, and they were perfectly satisfied with the victory, with- 
out at all disclaiming the dishonorable means they had employed to 
secure it. But as easily could the English efface the stigma that rests 
upon them from their employment of the Indian's tomahawk during 
their warfare with America. 

And I ask them, is thereon their records a disapproval of the declara- 
tion of Dr. Spring, or of Dr. Bond? The one that we would murder 
heretics, and the other, that the religion of Voltaire was to be preferred 
to that of Fenelon ? Have they in any one official document disavowed 
that? We challenge them to show that the question of a disclaimer 
has ever been mooted. On the contrary, we have reason to believe 
that they approved of these statements made by Drs. Spring and Bond, 
and that from their own document too, signed by their President and 
Secretary, which goes nearly as far. And yet these are the men to 
whom we are required to give the management of the education of our 
children ! They have hedged education around with an impenetrable 
wall, beyond which no applicant from our body can be admitted, ex- 
cept on terms that violate our civil and religious rights. A state of 
ignorance and degradation is the destiny assigned to those who will not 
submit to their Procrustean system, to the dimensions of which all 
must submit to be adapted. 

The Society acknowledge that Messrs. Ketchum and Sedgwick are 
their official organs. Well, we find Mr. Sedgwick, in the speech re- 
ferred to, on last evening, absolutely disclaiming the teaching of reli- 
gion. He said it was a mistake to suppose that what was called reli- 
gious instruction, meant any thing more than simple morality, which 
he stated to be the basis of all religion. And do these gentlemen in- 
tend to reverse the order of the Almighty, and, by giving this pre- 
cedence to morality, to say that men must be good without a motive, 
and then they may learn religion? How then can they quarrel with 
us for saying that s they attempted, what Mr. Spencer says well, is im- 
possible, to divorce religion from education ? It was on that ground 



that they appeared before the Common Council and defeated our 
claim ; for as you saw yesterday, and see to-day — the crime charged 
upon us — the disqualifying circumstance, was lhat we belonged to a 
religious society, and the public money was, not to be appropriated in 
any way, except in the promotion of a "purely civil and secular edu- 
cation." When we told them that we snpposed they were sincere in 
their declarations, and that by divorcing religion from education, thus 
leaving the children without the necessary motive to virtue and morality, 
and wholly destitute of any principle, to curb their rising passions, 
they seemed to exclaim " Oh ! what an impious set of men you sup- 
pose us to be, Atheists!" No, noi exactly, but I accuse you of being 
what vou, yourselves, assume. You defeat all applications made by 
applicants professing religion. You contend that religion must not 
be any part of State education. Well, then, how can you be dissatis- 
fied, if we call you anti-religious according to the principles you have, 
yourselves, assumed? 

The fact is that in order to conciliate those whose minds are haunt- 
ed by a certain spectre of a union between Church and State, and in 
order to bring them to the support of the Society, they pretended to 
meet their views exactly, and then again on the other hand, attempted 
to satisfy the scruples of conscientious parents by playing the several 
sects one against the other, and with so much adroitness, that the whole 
community came to the desired conclusion that the interests of edu- 
cation'and morality were perfectly safe in the hands of the Society, 
and could not be safe in the hands of any other. 

In taking up the speech of Mr. Ketchum, I must premise that he 
has divided it into two parts, and that of the many columns by 
which it is supported, the first two or three are occupied with a de- 
tailed history of the legislatlio, so called, of the Common Council, 
on this question. Now, I understand the part of this gentle- 
man — who has perhaps as deep a knowledge of the mystery of poli- 
tical wire-drawing as any other gentleman of his profession in the 
State — I understand his introduction of this matter, entirely foreign 
to the subject. His object was to impress the mind of the Senators 
with the idea that in New York, the question had been decided — 
that Board of Aldermen had been changed — the position of parties 
changed — applications had been made from time to time, for sixteen 
years, and that after the gravest reflection, under all possible variety 
of circumstances, the answer uniformly was, that it would be a vio- 
lation of something that he calls " a great principle, " — which 
however, he does not think proper to define — if our claim were ad- 
milted. He wished to convey the idea that if there had been any 
thing just, or proper, or true, in our claims, it could not have es- 
caped the notice of public officers in New York — the immediate re- 
presentatives of the people, and that consequently the Senators should 
approach the subject with minds already biassed and prejudiced 
against us. The gentleman wished to lead the honorable legislators 
to say " What ! shall we on the examination of one hour — at this dist- 
ance from the city of New York. — undertake to reverse the judgment 
sustained by the uniform concurrence of the various Boards that 
have constituted the public councils of that city for sixteen years !" 



29 

There was great generalship in all that on the part of the learned 
gentleman. 

But I dispute the principle in toto, which the gentleman assumes, 
and before that honorable Senate I would maintain, that the gen- 
tleman has no foundation whatever for his assumption ; and 
that this question should be viewed by them, as if approached for the 
first time. 

And what is my reason for assuming this position? You will 
mark that the learned gentleman, frequently styles the Common 
Council " the representatives of the people," my argument, in reply, 
then is, that so far as regards this School question they never weje the 
" representatives of the people," for that question never was made 
one that could affect their election in the most remote degree. At least, 
so we thought. So far as we are concerned, we are right. True, whilst 
we were meeting to study this subject, and bring it under public 
notice, these gentlemen of the Society were ever and anon charging 
us with political designs, and I recollect something of an amusing 
nature connected with that. It was my duty, in the day succeeding 
the debate, before the Common Council, to proceed to Albany for 
the purpose of giving Confirmation — I went — preached on three times 
next day, Sunday, — on Monday, I drove to Troy, for the purpose of 
visitiug the churches there, and on Tuesday, I returned to this city. 
Well, what was the story, — of course I do not say got up by these 
gentlemen, nor by the Public School Society — but it was said, that T, 
having taken tea with the Aldermen, a bargain was struck between 
us, and I was to go to Albany, to get the Catholics to vote against 
the Governor, and then all would be right! (Laughter.) That was a 
specimen of the stories that were circulated; but while we were thus 
charged, they who brought the accusation, were themselves not idle in 
that very department. The subject was introduced to their pulpits, 
and their congregations were lectured on it, and from that may be 
traced the attempt to defeat Governor Seward. 

But we never made this a political question, and the Common 
Council have never acted on it "as the representatives of the people," 
because it never was applied as a test; — but if the question were put 
between the Secretary's plan, and the Public School Society, the lat- 
ter would soon break down any Board that would undertake to support 
them. (Cheers.) 

We were denied, it is true, by the Common Council, but we 
never looked on them as acting in that matter, as the representa- 
tives of the people. We regarded them as independent judges. And 
really there is little ground for surprise at their decisions in the premises. 
Now I will suppose a case. Let us take that of a bank, for it is 
perhaps as good an illustration as I can furnish at the moment. A 
citizen has a controversy with the bank, and that controversy comes 
to a trial. The citizen complains lhat he is injured by the directors 
of the bank, he makes out his case, but in the end, he finds, contrary 
to all his just anticipations, and all his views of justice, that he is de- 
feated, and judgment given against him. Well, he thinks this very 
hard. But he happens to learn that the judge before whom the case was 
tried, and the jury who rendered the verdict, are all directors of the 



30 

bank ! — and his wonder at the result of the trial ceases. Do you sec 
the application? These gentlemen after having excluded all religious 
societies — made the word religion a kind of disqualification in a 
Christian community, in the year 1824 ; after that with the subtlety, 
which proves that they are wise in their generation, they got an act 
passed by which the Common Council are made ex officio members of 
the Public School Society, and thus constituted them parties and judges 
in the cause. 

Let me not be misunderstood. I do not suppose for a moment that 
any gentleman of that Common Council would at any time knowingly 
deviate from the path of justice and duty on account of his official con- 
nexion with that Society ; but at the same time I do know, that there 
is a powerful influence in association, against which the laws, with great 
wisdom, have guarded the judicial Bench, when they declare that a 
Judge should be of a single mind — elevated above all selfish consid- 
erations — and whose interests could never be affected by the result of 
any official act which he might be called on to execute, or any sen- 
tence which it might be his duty to pronounce. Here, then, were 
Aldermen of different parties elected from time to time, and so made 
members — part and parcel — of this Society ; and, I ask, would it 
have been a gracious thing in them, after having been so honored with 
a place in it, to become adverse to the interests of that body 1 Let 
us bear in mind, too, that there is with most people a regard for con- 
sequences, and no Alderman could imagine he would greatly benefit 
his interests by opposing a corporation that has acquired nearly the 
entire control of all the public money appropriated for the purpose of 
education in New York, and having its dependents spread from one 
end of the city to the other. I think it would require a strong and ele- 
vated mind — an unusual amount of moral courage, to enable any man 
so situated to oppose such a Corporation. 

I do not then admit the reasoning of Mr. Ketchum, for I deny his 
premises that the Common Council ever were " the representatives of 
the people" on this subject. 

I will now commence my review of this speech. I read it care- 
fully from beginning to end, and I was myself impressed with the 
idea that it scarcely required an answer. I was quite convinced 
of that, so far as the honorable Senators were concerned, because 
I knew that to the minds of men accustomed to reasoning, and to 
detect at a glance where the strength of a position rested, that 
speech must have appeared a thing altogether out of place. 
Nevertheless, it was hinted to me that the speech was not in- 
tended for Senators alone, and the readiness with which Mr. 
Ketchum could furnish the Report went considerably to strengthen 
that opinion. It was said, that though to me the speech might 
seem weak, yet to the generality of readers, particularly those 
unacquainted with the subject, it might seem very specious, and 
produce in their minds the very conclusions opposite to those which 
we would wish to see established. On that ground I have taken 
it up ; and I must say that with regard to Mr. Ketchum himself, 
I have the kindest possible feeling, and if in the course of my 
remarks I should happen to speak in a manner seemingly disre- 



31 

spectful, I beg that it may not be considered as having been so 
intended : of the gentleman himself I cannot say any thing disre- 
spectful — of his speech I hope I am permitted to say whatever the 
evidence may authorize. I mention his name with perfect free- 
dom, because his name is attached to the speech, and because, 
principally, he is the official organ of that Society, and what he 
says is already endorsed by them. 

After his introduction, Mr. Ketchum says : — 

" This probably may account very sensibly for the fact, that in the city of 
New-York the portion of the school fund alloted to her was to be distributed by 
these almoners of her charily whom her representatives thought proper to desig- 
nate. Now, I ask, was there any thing inconsistent with sound principle in this ? 
Is there any thing in it which violates the principle of the largest liberty, and the 
purest democracy, of which we hear something in this report J" 

Stop, Mr. Ketchum ! I tell you that there is not one word in that whole 
Report against such a state of things as that you represent to the minds 
of the Senators, by making a wrong application. "What is represented as 
contrary to the principle of our constitution, was the monopoly — the 
exclusive system that has succeeded to the former ; and Mr. Ketchum 
is kind enojgh to make an anterior reference to the period when all 
enjoyed the appropriation for the purposes of education. I stop him 
there, and say, that he makes a wrong application. He ought not to 
prejudice the minds of Senators, or the community, by pretending that 
the Secretary's Report trenches on the enjoyment of the largest 
liberty. 

Mr. Ketchum goes on : — 

" In the city of New- York, as I shall have occasion to show by-and-bye — and 
more or less I suppose it is so in all the states of Christendom — there are volun- 
tary associations — charitable associations — associations composed of men, incor- 
porated or otherwise, who are willing to proffer their services; to feed the hun- 
gry; to clothe the naked ; to visit the destitute, and to see to the application of 
funds set apart for their relief. Such men are always to be found in large cities ; 
men of fortune, men of leisure, men of benevolence, who are willing to associate 
together for benevolent objects, and who are usually made the almoners of the 
charity of others." 

Now, Mr. Ketchum, in the whole of this, is gliding imperceptibly 
to the point he wishes to reach. And what is that point? It is to fix 
on the minds of the Senators, that as religious societies formerly took 
care of their poor, and as other associations take care of other objects 
of benevolence, so they were to look upon the Public School Society 
as taking care of education. In endeavoring to effect this conclusion, 
his reasoning glides imperceptibly, as on a colored surface which 
is black at one extremity, and white at the other, but in which the vari- 
ous shades are so nicely mingled that you cannot ascertain the point 
where the change of color begins, so does the progress of his so- 
phistry elude observation. "Charitable Associations." Now, 1 will 
examine Mr. Ketchum's philosophy here. I consider that there is here 
what may be called a rhetorical picture. He personifies the city of 
New York, and calls it "she" — then he takes [her and places her on 
one side, and places all the religious societies, and benevolent societies 
— the Public School Society amongst the rest ; and that being done, 
he says, the city of New York made them her "almoners." But when 
we take these societies away, where is "she?" what becomes of her? 



32 

(Laughter and cheers.) This is what I call a rhetorical fiction. Mr. 
Ketchum need not pretend to say that the city of New York made 
"almoners." They were self-created. When you take the religious 
societies, each having its charity school, and this Society, which we 
must not call irreligious, although it has always defeated its opponents 
by saying that they profess religion — these constitute the people of 
New York, and they received the money set apart for that specific pur- 
pose, and in their sovereign power and wisdom they applied it as they 
thought proper. They managed it with perfect harmony, for I never 
heard of the occurrence of a dispute when each section of the com- 
munity assumed the management of their own schools, and it ,vas on 
account of a charge against one society of misappropriating the public 
money that the controversy arose. 

Afterwards referring to the Legislature by which that state of things 
was changed to the present, he says : — 

" Hence, after many discussions in the Assembly chamber, (discussions at 
which all the members were invited to attend — and almost all of them did attend 
— for we had generally a quorum, although it was before a committee night after 
night — th« committee of the Assembly at length made a report favourable to the 
prayer of the memorial; but suggesting in that very report whether even so 
much as was granted in the proposition referred to was not a violation of sound 
principle; whether in fact religious societies ought to participate in the enjoy- 
ment of the fund at all, because, by such participation, the Jew might be made 
to support he doctrine of the Christian, and, vice versa, the Christian that of the 
Jew; the Catholic of the Protestant; the Protestant of the Catholic, and soon." 

What a splendid discovery ! The people hitherto living in perfect 
harmony, all enjoying that appropriation of public money — not perhaps 
expending it in the wisest manner, but at all events without disturbance 
or dispute. But all at once it is discovered that because they are reli- 
gious societies, it would be a violation of sound principle to allow them 
the public money? And why? Because in that case the money paid 
by a Protestant might pass to the support of a Catholic school — or, if 
you please, to the school of a Jew — and that involved a violation of 
conscience. I confess, however, I cannot see that, nor do I think any 
reflecting man can see it. But what is the fact respecting the turn of 
the legislation in relation to the Public School Society, called, at that 
time, the "Free School Society?" Simply, that because at that Bethel 
Baptist church, money had been improperly appropriated, occasion was 
taken to punish not the guilty party, if there was guilt, but those who 
had memorialized against the abuse of public money, and to disfran- 
chise every man professing religion, because the members of one par- 
ticular church had abused their trust ! And it is suspected that all this 
was not done without the secret instrumentality of that very Free 
School Society itself, which then, as at the present day, professed to 
have no religion at all. So that in this very Legislature — though I 
know that another view of it is perfectly lawful — we see that the reasoning 
approved by Mr. Ketchum, would go to brand a stigma on the sacred- 
ness of religion — it would lead to the inference that because the adher- 
ents of one religious sect have abused their trust in the employment of 
the public money, that, therefore, all profession of religion should be 
an everlasting disqualification ? But I pronounce such an inference 
unworthy the citizens of a land in whose constitution Christianity is 



33 

Tccogaized. And I ask, where was the usual penetration of Mr. 
Ketchum when he employed such reasoning'? By the laws of this 
State, church property is exempted from taxation ; and I am surprised 
that gentlemen of such tender apprehensions can rest quietly at night, 
when they reflect, that possibly Protestant money is going to make up 
the deficiency in the revenues of the State caused by the exemption 
from taxation granted to Catholic churches ! But I see no harm at all 
in the state of things by which money is thus transferred. All the 
churches are represented by all the people, and it matters not an iota ii 
■churches are exempted, the tax is paid by the members in another form. 

So with the Public School money. Although in the manipulation 
of the money, it might happen that the identical dollar paid by a Pro- 
testant might pass into the treasury of a Catholic school, the Catholic 
dollar would go back to replace it in the Pretestant school, it would bf 
in the end all the same, for the question is not at all about the identity 
of the money. If the taxes could be kept separate, and the money 
paid by the Protestant go into the Protestant box, and the money paid 
by the Catholic go into the Catholic box, sure enough they would get 
their own money, but it would be all the same if no such care had been 
taken. Here I would refer to the case of chaplains in our prisons, &e. 
not one of whom is a Catholic, but who have often received the con- 
tributions of Catholics — have they ever complained that that was a vio- 
lation of the constitution 1 Certainly not ; and that practical view of the 
matter should have taught the gentleman the futility of his reasoning — 
that if the money of the one sect went into the hands of another it was 
all the same — it was the money of the people received from them in 
one form, and returned to them in another, allowing them in its em- 
ployment the noble and grand privilege — of which I trust they .will not 
allow themselves to be deprived, no matter how they exercise it — of 
obeying the dictates of their own free consciences. (Cheers.) 

In the course of his speech, the gentleman makes a grand display 
of all the sects that were set aside by the Society. Then he asks the 
Senate, " will this honourable body grant to Catholics what was de- 
nied to all these?" But there is a difference here, and what is it ? 
There is not on record an instance of a complaint on the part of any 
of these sects that their rights of conscience were invaded. Episco- 
palians never made any such complaint — nor did Presbyterians — nor 
Methodists — nor did any of the other sects, — but it happened, that 
they had Charity schools attached to their churches, and they thought, 
giving such education as the state required, they were entitled to their 
share of the state bounty. But very different was the case of the 
Catholics. And now, suppose the circumstances of the case were re- 
versed, and Catholics had the majority on which the Society de- 
pends, and would employ the power conferred by it, in forcing on the 
wholo community Catholic books, andCatholic versions of the Bible, 
and give the children lessons about the burning of Servetus, and the 
ignorance of a whole nation in supposing the machine for winnowing 
corn to be an impious invention, and denouncing those employing it 
as guilty of a crime against the God who supplies the zephyrs and The 
breeze, — suppose that case, and that the aggrieved minority com- 
plained and applied for redress, I trust that on the face of the earth 
there would not be found a Common Council of Catholics who would 
refuse to listen to so just a prayer! 

5 



34 

Mr. Ketchum says farther, when speaking of the action of the Com- 
mon Council on this application, that it had been referred to a Law Com- 
mittee ; and he quotes the decision of that Committee. We, know- 
ing the manner in which our former applications were disposed of. 
need not, of course, be surprised at the manner in which this Report 
was expressed. To our last application, made in the spring of 1840, 
— when I was absent from this country — to the Board of Assistant Al- 
dermen, the usual negative was given ; but then it is to be observed, 
that that Board was surrounded by the advocates of the Society, and 
these things Which we have stated, and which they have since ac- 
knowledged, were denied by them — and on that denial was grounded 
the refusal of our application. The advocates of the Society denied, that 
there were any passages in their books with which we could find fault ; 
averred that they contain nothing disrespectful to our religion. But 
since then, they have been obliged to retract that, and to acknowledge 
repeatedly that in making these assertions they were not sustained by 
truth ; that there were passages in those books reflecting upon our 
faith; that these passages had been taught to the children for years, 
and would have been retained till this very day, had it not been for our 
detection and exposure. But it was not at all surprising, that under 
the influence of a Society, stretching its gigantic branches over every 
quarter of the city, and hearing such assertions from its advocates, the 
Board should deny our claim. But let us glance at the conclusion 
which Mr. Ketchum draws from such denial ; he says : — 

"That conclusion was ratified by their constituents; and I believe that every 
one of the religious societies, or nearly so, excepting the Roman Catholics, ac- 
quiesced in that decision. But that society, year after year, has come before the 
Common Council and renewed their request for a separate portion of the school 
fund. With the best feelings for the applicants, in a spirit of kindness; with 
every disposition to do whatever could be done for them, year after year, and 
without respect to politics, whether the one party was in the ascendant, or the 
other party was in the ascendant, the Common Council have, with almost entire 
unanimity, disallowed that request ; and I believe that never in either Board, since 
the division of that body into two Boards, has there been but one dissenting voice 
raised against the ratification of that decision. Now, if the committee please — 
who have complained? The Roman Catholics." 

I repeat, that I deny the philosophy of this reasoning. I deny, that 
in any case, that portion at least of the community that has petitioned 
for a reform of this system, ever looked to the Common Council as 
their representatives on this question. And another argument against 
Mr. Ketchum's position is, that this Public Council were partizans in the 
case in which they were called to deliver judgment. And I think that 
it would be well for that Public School Society and the Common 
Council, if the latter by their election to office are to be engrafted into 
the former, that the duty of judging between them and the community 
were delegated to disinterested parties. 

Mr. Ketchum goes on to say : 

" No disrespect was intended them. The Common Council, and every person 
engaged in the discussion of the question on behalf of the Common School Society, 
took great care to say, 'We do not reject you because you are Roman Catholics ;' 
and as evidence of this truth, we give you the fact that we have rejected similar 
applications from powerful Protestants — but we reject your request because we 
believe that a sound general principle will not allow us to grant it." 

So there was always a precaution observed. Indeed, I myself re- 
marked that before the Common Council. They uniformly — with 



35 

one exception — said, that they did not oppose us because we were 
Catholics. But Dr. Spring, with great magnanimity and candour, 
neglected to take the hint, but declared that he was apprehensive of 
our faith gaining ground. He would oppose us and preserve the So- 
ciety as it was, even though the rights of the Catholics should be dam- 
aged, and that for his part he preferred the religion of Voltaire to that 
of Fenelon ! The sentiment was indeed a black one, and it was ren- 
dered blacker by the brightness of the candour with which it was ut- 
tered. 

Here again Mr. Ketchum states what is incorrect. He says : — 
t; We have rejected similar applications from powerful Protestants." 
I deny that. I refer him to the records of the Common Council, and I 
will venture to affirm that he will not find there one " similar applica- 
tion." And why ? Simply because there was no ground for any such 
application. For although one denomination of Protestants may differ 
from another, and may carry their attachment to their respective dog- 
mas to great length, yet there is one common ground on which they 
all, so far as I know, without exception, meet. What is it? That the 
Bible alone, as understood by each individual, is their rule of faith. 
They could therefore unite on their Public School question so far as 
the Bible was concerned. But then they required, that Catholic chil- 
dren, whose creed never admitted that principle, should be taught that 
doctrine. They had not the same reason that we had to go before the 
Common Council. We felt, that we might as well at once give up to 
them our children and allow them to educate them as they pleased, as 
send them to their schools. I deny then the statement, that " similar 
applications " were made. 
Mr. Ketchum proceeds : — 

" I say that the Corporation has been desirous, so far as that body possibly 
could, so far as they felt themselves at liberty, consistently with the maintenance 
of a sound general principle, to accommodate these parties. They have granted 
a privilege out of this fund to the Roman Catholic denomination, which has not 
been granted to any other. The Sisters of Charity, so called, under direction of 
the Roman Catholic Church, and connected with it, (I believe I am right — if not 
I should be happy to be corrected,) established a most benevolent institution in 
the city of New- York, called the Orphan's Asylum — the Roman Catholic Or- 
phan's Asylum. They took into this institution poor and destitute orphans. They 
fed and clothed them most meritoriously — and they thus relieved the city of New- 
York of the maintenance of many who would otherwise, probably, have been a 
charge upon it. After long discussion, and with some hesitancy, yet overcome by 
the desire to oblige, and aware of the limitation arising from the very nature ot 
that institution, the Corporation did permit the Catholic Orphan Asylum to re- 
ceive money from this fund ; and during the last year it received some 1462 dol- 
lars for the education of about one hundred and sixty-five children — in common 
with the institution for the blind, and the deaf and the dumb, and those other be- 
nevolent and Christian institutions which are altogether of a Catholic character 
in the most comprehensive acceptation of that term — as they are under no secta- 
rian influence or government." 

And pray what sort of an institution is the Protestant Orphan Asylum ? 
Is religion not taught there? And yet Mr. Ketchum singles out the 
Catholic Orphan Asylum, and speaks of the favour conferred upon it, 
in order to show the liberality of the Common Council. We are in- 
deed grateful to that body for having placed ours on the same footing 
with other institutions of a kindred character. But the Common Coun- 
cil have granted money to the Protestant Half Orphan Asylum, and 

6 



36 

denied an application of a similar grant to the Catholics. How can Mr. 

Ketchum assert that a " privilege " has been granted to us exclusively 

In reference to our last application, Mr. Ketchum proceeds : — 

"The subject, I repeat, underwent a very full and free discussion; and, after 
that had terminated, the Board of Aldermen gravely considered and discussed the 
subject ; and at length, after soms delay, came to the conclusion that they would 
go and visit Ihe schools. Some of the members of the Board of Public Schools, 
feeling sensibly alive on the subject, expressed to me an apprehension that this 
was a mere evasion, and they feared that the question had now become mingled 
with politics. But I said, Wait, gentlemen ; let them go and see your schools, — 
it is a natural desire — they ought to go. It is a great and delicate question, and 
they ought to be acquainted with it in all its details. 

" They went and visited the Public Schools, and the Roman Catholic Schools, 
and they incorporated the result of their deliberations in a report which I have 
before me, and from which I shall quote by-and-bye. It is drawn up with great 
ability, and the decision was, with but one dissenting voice, that the prayer of the 
pe;ition should be rejected ; and it was rejected." 

On this I remark, in reference to what I have, I believe, already re- 
ferred to, that there has been always a panacea for every evil — the ap- 
pointment of a committee to visit the schools. Why this is one of the 
easiest things in the world ! A little training — a little arrangement — 
a judicious wink to the teachers — will prepare every thing, so that it 
will be very hard if a pleasing exhibition could not be got up in any one 
of these schools for one hour, on any day out of the. three hundred and 
sixty-five in the year. 

But this has been the invariable remedy — no looking at the wounds 
which the system was from year to year, and from day to day, inflict- 
ing on less favoured portions of the community — no visit to the back 
streets and miserable lanes of this city, in which so large a portion of 
its future inhabitants are grovelling in exposure to vice and degradation. 
Nothing of that was thought of. But the schools enriched and adorned 
by the expenditure of more than a million of meney were inspected, 
and the gratified and approving visitors returned to the Common 
Council, to make their report, that it was an excellent system, perfect 
in its details and admirable in its workings, and it was only the absurd 
bigotry and extreme ignorance of the Catholics, that prevented them 
from reaping its benefits ! 

Then he compares with all this, the state of our humble schools : 

Well, I will not pretend to say that the Catholic schools were in the 
best order. But here I remark, that whilst at every stage and step of 
the progress of this question, I have been obliged to controvert false 
statements, I can challenge thern to point to a single instance in which 
they could dispute the truth of any of our documents. And now I will 
give a passing notice to that visit to the Catholic schools. Hear this 
statement : — This Committee say 

— " We also visited three of the schools established by the petitioners, and we 
found them as represented, lamentably deficient in accommodations, and supplies 
of books and teachers ;j the rooms were all excessively crowded, and poorly 
rentilated ; the books much worn, as well as deficient in numbers, and the teach- 
ers not sufficiently numerous; yet, with all these disadvantages; though not able 
to compete successfully with the Public Schools, they exhibited a progress which 
was truly creditable ; and with the same means at their disposal, they would 
doubtless soon be able, under suitable direction, greatly to improve their condi- 
tion." 

Such is their testimony. 



37 

And now shall I pass over this opportunity of making a comparison ? 
When questioned before the Senate, the Society stated that they could 
not get the children to come, and here are our schools crowded to 
excess ! I can show you in a room, not much larger than the square 
of the distance between two of the columns supporting the gallery of 
this building in which we are now assembled, upwards of two hundred 
children crowded together ! Yet the Public School Society are obliged 
to pay $1000 a year of public money to visitors for the purpose of gath- 
ering children to their schools. For the fact came out in the course of 
the investigation, that they paid that sum yearly to Tract distributors 
for the purpose I have stated, whilst we, in our poverty, could not find 
room or books or teachers for the multitudes of children that thronged 
upon us, and whom this exclusive system consigns to degradation and 
ignorance, and vice, unless something be done for them by others ! 
(Cheers.) 

Such is the testimony of that very Committee. And yet the decision 
to which they came, is quoted by Mr. Ketchum as proof that a " great 
principle" — of which no definition known is given from the beginning 
to the end of his speech, — prevented them from granting our petition. 
Well I have called your attention already, and would do so again, to 
a point that shows, as clear as noon-day, that this denial was not be- 
nevolent towards us, nor in accordance with equal-handed justice. 
They had opposed us as a sect — as being Catholics. The Secretary 
of State, however, — a man, whose integrity of character, legal know- 
ledge, and profound and statesmanlike views, have elevated him to the 
highest rank in the community, — placed the question on entirely dif- 
ferent grounds. Mr. Ketchum, in the last sentence of his speech be- 
fore the Common Council, declared, that to the Public School Society 
the discharge of their duties was rather a burthen, which nothing but 
the extreme benevolence of their nature had prompted them to as- 
sume, and unless they were saved from this continued agitation, they 
would throw it off. Well, Mr. Spencer excludes all these objection- 
able features, and places the question on a broad basis, entirely re- 
moved from all sectarianism ; and then where are these benevolent 
gentlemen who are burthened with their charge — these " humble al- 
thoners" of the public bounty? At Albany, ready for a new fight! 
Not for their Schools, but to oppose the Secretary ; for Mr. Spencer 
only wishes to make education like the air we breathe, the land we 
live in ; — like other departments of human industry and enterprise — 
free ! He would not hold the balances so as to affjrd the least ad- 
vantage to any party, but would make all equal, and secure to them 
the enjoyment of the rights established by the Constitution of the 
country; and who opposed him! The Public School Society. Their 
interests were not invaded, but they could not admit the principle that 
we were to receive education consistently with the laws of the State? 
Why? You will find that in the course of Mr. Ketchum's speech, he 
says the Public School Society could not stand one day if education 
were made free ! If the monopoly which they have wielded for six- 
teen years should be touched by the little finger of free trade, they 
would perish ! " They cannot live a day." And, gentlemen, if they 
cannot live one day on the principles of justice and freedom, then I 
say, that half a day's existence is quite enough for their exclusive 
system. 



38 

We have seen that Mr. Ketchum has introduced the Committee to 
the Schools, and now he comes to the point : 

"Who, then complain of the operations of this system? Our fellow-citizens, 
the Roman Catholics. 

" F.uLng to get from the hands of a body thus constituted, the redress for the 
grievance, which they complained of, they come here and now ask it of you. 
1 say they come here, because I will .presently show you from their memorials, 
that none but they come here." 

He has brought it round to that, and he thinks that if that be estab- 
ished, the same prejudices, the same means, that were employed to 
defeat us in New-York, would be equally efficacious at Albany. 

He says : 

" Failing to accomplish their purpose through the Common Council of the City 
of New York, they come and ask it here. Failing in their application to a body 
of representatives to whom they have applied year after year, and who represent 
a population in which is intermingled a greater mass of Roman Catholic voters 
than in any other district of the State of New York." 

See the advantage that he takes of our known forbearance, and their 
activity. Because we, with honourable motives that should have been 
better appreciated, abstained from making this question a political one. 
But they did make it such a question, and endeavoured to deter all 
public men from rendering justice to the oppressed Catholics. 

Now I am no politician, I belong to no party, and I can also, per- 
haps, speak with the greater freedom, because we have high minded 
friends and opponents too, amongst both political parties, and I can 
perhaps give a satisfactory answer to Mr. Ketchum's allusion to " vo- 
ters." 

After the election of the Governor, the papers in the views of this 
Society, referred to it as a warning, and not only so, but individuals 
here, wrote to the Governor in terms of reproach against the Catho- 
lics and the Irish, for not having been more grateful to hin. They 
taunted him with it. And how is that to be answered 1 I should be 
sorry that ever the Irish should be ungrateful under any circum- 
stances, or ever forget a friend : and especially at a time when the 
high and noble principles of justice and equality laid down by the fa- 
thers of this country, seem to be passing rapidly into oblivion. If a 
public man stands up for the rights of even the humblest portion of the 
community, he is entitled to the gratitude and esteem of every man 
who loves his country. Not that the Governor conferred on us any 
peculiar favour. I disclaim that — he never asked any thing for u * , but 
what we conceived our right. But still he was taunted with references 
to the ingratitude of the Irish. It was said, " there is what you got 
by advocating the cause of the Irish !" That shows whether we made 
our question a political one ; and I am glad in one sense that the Irish did 
not vary from the principles in politics, to which they had been in the habit 
of attaching themselves. Because that demonstrates, that whatever may 
he the opinion of calculating politicians respecting the Irish, that por- 
tion of this community have, perhaps, after all, an integrity of charac- 
ter, and purity of principle, which is not unfrequently found wanting 
amongst more elevated classes of both political parties. It was dis- 
covered then, that the Irish would not abandon their principles from selfish 
motives. But now let me ask what was the case on the other side ? 
Many of them turned quietly round, abandoning all their old political 



39 

associations and friends, in order to let Gov. Seward know how much 
he had dared when he declared for justice and equal rights to 
all. (Cheers) 

Such was the case, and our opponents cannot deny it. Mr. Ket- 
chum then is unfortunate in his allusion. He ought not — if he had 
what I shall not now mention — if he had had presenceof mind, I will say 
he ought notto have alluded to that matter at all, because it has brought 
up the proofs of what was done by his own clients, whilst our vindica- 
tion is triumphantly effected. 

We have thus been enabled to refute all the charges urged against 
us from the pulpits and religious presses, at the disposition of the So- 
ciety, that we made a political question of it, and so forth. They did, 
but we did not. 

Gentlemen, I have dwelt longer on some topics than I intended, 
and made less progress in my review of this speech than I anticipated. 
On to-morrow evening I will proceed with rny remarks. [Loud, and 
long continued applause.) 

The meeting then adjourned. 

(On Friday evening, the Bishop attended, according to his intimation 
at Carroll Hall, and where, notwithstanding the extreme inclemency of 
the weather, a very considerable audience was assembled. It was, 
however, deemed expedient to adjourn the meeting till the following 
Monday.) 



MONDAY EVENING. 

On Monday evening an immense number of persons assembled to 
hear the conclusion of the Right Rev. Prelate's speech. The aisles 
and galleries of the large building in which the audience congregated, 
were densely crowded, and in the body of the house it was impossible 
te obtain a seat for a considerable time before the meeting was organ- 
ized. Amongst those present we noticed the Lieutenant Governor 
of this State, and many distinguished Senators. 

Shortly before 8 o'clock, Thomas O'Connor, Esq. was called to 
the Chair amid the acclamations of the meeting ; and after the minutes 
of the former meetings had been read by B. O'Connor, Esq. the Sec- 
retary, Bishop Hughes, rose and was received with deafening ap- 
plause. On its subsidence, he proceeded as follows : — 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have had occasion already to ob- 
serve that the question we are now discussing has passed, or at least 
is now passing through the second stage of its progress. In the first 
stage we had to apply to the city authorities ; and we were obliged by 
the circumstances of the case, and for reasons that I have already men- 
tioned, to apply in a character which we did not desire, but which was 
forced upon us by circumstances over which we had no control. The 
issue of that application is known. Then we laid our grievances be- 
fore the Legislature of the State ; and the Secretary of State, to whom 
the question had been referred, placed it upon grounds altogether dif- 
ferent from those on which it had hitherto been considered. Conse- 
quently it was necessary for me, in reviewing Mr. Ketchum's speech, 
to consider it under two heads. And hitherto my remarks on it have 
applied to the question under the circumstances in which it was, previ- 



40 

ous to its reference to the Legislature of the State. We have now v - 
however to consider it on the ground on which it has been placed in 
the able and eloquent and libera/ report of the Hon. Mr. Spencer. 
And I cannot avoid observing in the first place, that taking into ac- 
count the principles of equality and of justice that pervade that docu- 
ment, I did conceive that the Public School Society could not have 
found any objections against it> For you will recollect that Mr- 
Spencer removes entirely the objections urged before the Common 
Council against the recognition of our claims. These objections were 
grounded on the principle that no sect or religious denomination had 
any thing to do with the money appropriated for the purpose of educa- 
tion. The Secretary has completely obviated that objection. He 
has regarded the petitioners in their civil capacity. He has exhibited 
the broad and general grounds on which every public institution in 
this country is conducted, but we find these gentlemen, nevertheless,, 
as zealous, and their advocate as eloquent against Mr. Secretary Spen- 
cer as they had been against us. There can be no charge now, that a 
recognition of our claims would favour sectarianism — a union oi 
Church and State. All that has disappeared, and with it we had hop- 
ed would have disappeared the opposition to our claims. 

I will now follow Mr. Ketchum in his arguments before the Senate. 
And first of all I would direct your attention to the number of times in 
which he repeats, that the petitioners are Catholics. He twists and 
turns that in a variety of ways, in order to convince the Senators, that 
though we applied in the character of citizens, that advantage was to 
be taken away from us, and we were to be clothed before that honour- 
ble body with our religious character, by the hand of Mr. Ketchum I 
I should have less confidence in the stability of this government — less 
affection for its constituted authorities, if I thought that such a circum- 
stance could militate against us in the minds of those gentlemen, who 
have been elected by the suffrages of the people to the guardianship of 
equal rights. (Cheers.) I conceive, therefore, that Mr. Ketchum has 
mistaken the character of that assembly — that he has exerted himself 
in vain to fix on us the epithet of Roman Catholics, when we appeared 
in the character of citizens, and when our right to worship God accord- 
ing to the dictates of our conscience had been already, a priori, recog- 
nized by the constitution of the country. And I ask is there any crime 
in being a Roman Catholic? Is there any advantage to be gained 
in bringing that against us? Is there any thing in the history of the 
country which could justify the hope of prejudicing the minds of Sena- 
tors by such an allusion? No. In the days when men stood side by 
side, and shoulder to shoulder, and blood touched blood in the battle 
strife, and with their brave swords they won the freedom of their coun- 
try was it asked who is a Catholic, or who is a Protestant 1 (Loud 
cheers.) Had Mr. Ketchum forgotten the names and deeds of Kos- 
ciusko, of Pulaski, of Lafayette, and the Catholic soldiers of Catho- 
lic France ? Was there any thing said against that religion by the fa- 
thers of our country, when they laid the foundation of the liberties we 
now enjoy? Was there any such charge against Charles Carroll, when he- 
came and signed that glorious Declaration, risking more than all the 
other signers together? No. Nor have we any cause to be ashamed 
of our religion, and God forbid we ever should ! I throw back, then, 
that manoeuvre of Mr. Ketchum, and I tell him, this is not the country 



whose constitution makes apparent to the world, that to be a Roman 
Catholic involves a deprivation of the rights and privileges of citizen- 
ship. 

Last year a petition was presented to the Senate, signed by Catho- 
lics alone — this year the petition had other signatures. True, the pe- 
titioners were generally Catholics, but others signed it too ; and I hope 
and believe, that they thought they asked but for justice. However, 
Mr. Ketchum, in order to accomplish his purpose, takes up the peti- 
tion presented last year, and taunts the Secretary, as if he were guilty 
of artifice in making it appear, that the members of other religious 
denominations had joined in our petition. He says : 

ft Probably, (continued Mr. Ketchum,) that circumstance was discovered by the 
Secretary's sagacity, between 1840 and 1841." 

What does he mean by that allusion except to remind the Secretary, 
that it was by prejudicing the public mind by misrepresentations, that 
•ertain partizans succeeded in diminishing the vote for his Excellency 
the Governor ? If Mr. Ketchum does not intend that by this delicate 
hint, I should like to know what he does mean. He then affects to 
take up the objections : — 

' : One of the complaints is that the people are not represented in this Public 
School Society ; that here is an agency used for a great public purpose which the 
people do not directly choose ; and they complain of the Public School Society 
being a close corporation." 

Certainly, all these are grounds of complaint, and all these are so 
clearly set forth in the Report of the Secretary, that you have but to 
read that document to see that Mr. Ketchum cannot shake one solitary 
position of that honourable gentleman. Is not the Public School So- 
ciety a close corporation? And is not Mr. Secretary Spencer's Re- 
port calculated to place it on the same basis on which all our free pub- 
lic institutions are founded 1 Is the Secretary not a Reformer, then,, 
in reference to that Society 1 He does here precisely what Lord John 
Russell attempts to do in England, when he endeavours to breakdown 
the monopoly of the corn laws, and to make bread cheap — Mr. Spen- 
cer wishes to break down the monopoly of education, and to make 
voting and education, the bread of knowledge, cheap. That is to 
say, that the same people who are supposed to be capable of choosing 
a Sheriff, or a Governor, or a President, without paying for the priv- 
ilege, should also have the right of choosing the teachers of their chil- 
dren without paying $10 for it. (Cheers.) Mr. Ketchum passes 
over that very lightly. That is a point not to be seriolisly dwelt upon, 
and he glides into the old charge preferred before the Common Coun- 
cil, and takes up the old objections, although not one of them was pre- 
sented in the petition before the Senate. Keeping always before the 
mind of the Senators, that we are Catholics, he affects to take up 
these objections, and says : — 

" Now, 1 wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact now to be 
stated ; — there is no complaint in these memorials, nor will you hear any from any 
source, that the Public School Society does not furnish to all the children who at- 
tend their schools a good literary education.'' 

Let me caution Mr. Ketchum not to be so fast, and I will give him 
my reasons. From the manner in which the examinations are con- 
ducted, it is the easiest thing in the world to have all ready prepared 
for the day of visitation ; when the examiners present themselves, pel 



42 

classes are arranged, and in them pel pupils, who will perform their 
part admirably well. It is easy to have all this array, and so it is to be 
regarded rather as an exhibition, than an examination. But if they 
desire their examinations to create universal confidence, let them have 
them as they ate conducted in European universities, where the pupils 
stand forward, and any person who chooses, examines them ; when 
not the choice and prepared pupils are taken, but the subjects of ex- 
amination are selected indiscriminately from the classes. Let such a 
method be adopted here, and I will venture to say that Mr. Ketchum 
will not have any thing to boast of over other schools. (Cheers.) I 
do not, however, blame the visitors for not finding fault with the ex- 
ternal management of these schools. I think it excellent — and the 
best proof of the sincerity of that opinion, was afforded in our willing- 
ness to adopt, and place the superintendence of our schools in the 
hands of these very gentlemen. 
But Mr. Ketchum goes on : — 

"The Roman Catholics complain, in the first place, that they cannot consci- 
entiously send their children to the Public Schools, because We do not give re- 
ligious instruction in a definite form, and of a decided and definite character. 
They complain, in the second place, that the school hooks in common use in the 
Society, contain passages reflecting upon the Roman Catholic Church. And 
they complain, in the third place, that we use the Bible without note or comment 
— that the school is opened in the morning by calling the children to order and 
reading a chapter in the Bible, — our common version. These are the three 
grounds on which they base their conscientious scruples." 

Now it is a fact that we do not complain of any one of these 
things in our petition to the Senate. One of these complaints was 
expressed in the petition to the Common Council, and I have al- 
already explained the reasons of that presentation. But in the 
petition to the Senate, we said in general terms, that the con- 
scientious scruples of a large portion of our fellow-citizens were 
violated by the system pursued in these schools. I will however 
take up these objections in order. 

Mr. Ketchum says that we complain in the first place, that we 
cannot send our children to the schools of the Public School Soci- 
ety, " because religion is not there taught of a decided and defi- 
nite character." Mr. Ketchum certainly has not stated the objection 
correctly, for I defy him to find such words in our petition. We 
complained in general against these schools, that by divorcing re- 
ligion and literature, they endangered the best interests of chil- 
dren who were ,to grow up to be mrn, and who to be useful mem- 
bers of the community, should have their minds imbued with 
correct principles, and could not be so without being made ac- 
quainted with some religious principles. But we never com- 
plained that they did not give "definite religious instruction." 
Far from it, and when Mr. Ketchum asserted that we did, I am sorry 
say that he asserted what he must or might have known to be 
untrue. And how do I prove it 1 In our propositions to the 
Committee of the Common Council, when they had gone through 
with their ceremony of visiting the schools, and the Society had of- 
fered their propositions, the very last article of our proposal was 
in these words. " But nothing of their (i. e. Catholic) dogmas, 
nothing against the creed of any other religious denomination 
shall be introduced." Mr. Ketchum saw that, and I ask him, how 



4.3 

•could he undertake to make an argument by substituting Ian* 
guage entirely different from ours, and presenting it as our objec- 
tion 1 How could he say that we found fault with the Public School 
Society for not teaching religion in a" definite form," when they 
always disclaimed the right to teach it at all, and considered it a 
crime for any denomination to ask for it 1 This is what I call 
substitution — invention — a course unworthy of Mr. Ketchum, of 
his profession, and of that Society of which he was the organ. 

I am well aware that to a hasty reader, Mr. Ketchum' s speech 
will appear very logical indeed. But I have at the same time, to 
observe that while he reasons logically, by drawing correct infer- 
ences from his premises, he has taken care previously, to change 
the premises, and instead of taking our principle as submitted by 
us, he gradually shifts it — preserving however, enough to de- 
ceive a cursory reader, until he substitutes one entirely different, 
from which he reasons very logically of course. Let us suppose 
Mr. Ketchum a professor of Law in some Uuniversity — for I 
have no doubt he could fill such a chair, and adorn it too, if he 
would ; and imagine him addressing a class of students. He 
says " Gentlemen, one of the most important things in our pro- 
fession is to know how to conduct an argument, which you must 
always do with logical precision. And to effect this, you are to 
follow this excellent rule — if your facts sustain your conclusions 
well — if not, you must find other facts that will !" (laughter and 
loud cheers.) " The principle of this rule, I call, the principle 
of substitution — and an admirable principle it is — but you must 
be cautious how you use it, especially before a Judge and Jury. 
But if it is before a public, which reads fast — for there is a great 
deal to be read — you will find it work very well. Recollect then, 
gentlemen, this great principle — " substitute " in your reason- 
ing !" (loud laughter.) 

In such a way, we might imagine Mr. Ketchum addressing his 
students. And you will find that few reason illogically. Even 
the inmates of the Lunatic Asylum reason very logically. One 
of them perhaps, imagines himself a clock, he says " Stand off, 
don't shake me, I am obliged to keep time." That is logical rea- 
soning. The only mistake is, that he " substitutes " a clock for 
a living creature — and reasoning from this substitution, he draws 
the conclusion admirably. So it is with Mr. Ketchum. (Laugh 
ter and cheers.) 

We did not, I tell Mr. Ketchum ask the Public School Society to 
teach religion in any definite form. We never complained of 
their not teaching it. We never did ask such an unreasonable 
thing from men who made it a crime for religious societies to 
have anything to do with the public money. 

He then states another objection — " that the books used in the 
schools, contain passages reflecting on the Catholic Church." 
That is true ; and he says in the third place, that we object that 
" the Protestant version of the Bible is used, and that the schools 
are opened by calling the children to order, and reading a pas- 
sage from that Bible." Not a word of that in our petition. 
That is " substitution" again — removing the objections present- 



44 

ed by us, and substituting others which might, as he supposed, 
lead to the denial of our claims, on the ground that we object 
unreasonably. 

Mr. Ketchum takes up the objection, and in order to show 
how unreasonable that was, he submits the proposition of the Public 
School Society — passsing altogether over ours, which common 
justice required, should have been also presented, as it would 
have discovered on our part a similar disposition, and have en- 
tirely undeceived the Senators, as to any alleged claim to have 
religion taught in a definite form. 

There was no official declaration guarding against the possibility, 
that, next year, another board might alter all these books to a worse 
state than ever ; and consequently their offer to expunge their books 
was altogether nugatory. Mr. Ketchum says however — 

" This portion of the report, as will he seen, has reference to these offensive pas- 
sages. Now, every hody will say, that it is a fair offT — we will strike them out. 
But, gentlemen of the committee, I submit whether here, in this country, we must 
not in matters of conflicting opinions, give and take a little." 

Well, I do not find the Public School Society, although very 
good at taking, at all disposed to give any thing. (Laughter.) 

" I have no doubt that I can find some;hing in any public school hook, of much 
length, and containing much variety of matter, reflecting upon the Methodists — 
upon the heated zeal, prob ihly of John Wesley, and his followers — reflecting upon 
the Episcopalians, the Baptists, and Presbyterians. Occasional sentences will find 
their way into public discourses, which, if viewed critically, and regarded in a 
captious spirit, rather reflect upon the doctrines of all those churches." 

In this way he gets over these passages, most insulting to us and 
our religion, which I pointed out to these gentlemen, after their 
having inculcated them in the minds of the children for sixteen years 
past ! We have to add however, that in examining these books, we 
found no passages reflecting on those denominations. 

Now I will call your attention to Mr. Ketchum's views respect- 
ing conscience and conscientious scruples. We supposed, that when 
a man could not do a thing in conscience, the reason was, that he 
thought by doing it, he would offend God. This is what we sup- 
posed to be a conscientious difficulty ; and therefore it was that we 
did not object (as he says, and as I shall have occasion to treat of 
presently) to the Protestants reading their version of the Bible ; be- 
cause, believing it right, they could use it with a good conscience. 
But we Catholics did not approve of that version — many other de- 
nominations do not approve of it — the Baptists and Unitarians, for 
instance — and our objection, was that Mr. Ketchum and the Public 
School Society would force or* us the reading of that version against 
which we had conscientious objections. We believe that to yield to 
that, would damage the faith which we hold to be most pleasing to 
God. Suppose us to be in error, if you please, but certainly the Pub- 
lic School Society have no right to rule that we are. The}' 
are not infallible, and consequently should recognize our right of 
conscience, as we recognize theirs. 

But Mr. Ketchum has battled bravely against these principles, and 
thinking it would be better for us to agree to offend our God, and 
coincide with the Public School Society, -wishes to beat down these 
scruples. And now would you have his idea of a conscientious scru- 



45 

pie I He institutes a comparison, in order to show how trifling 
such things are, and he says : — 

" On the other hand, there are many passages from the speeehes of Mr Webster, 
which have found their way into school books ; and a democrat may say, I can- 
not go Air Webster ; my children shall not be taught to admire him. And thus, 
if vvc are captious, we can find conscientious scruples enough." 

So that Mr. Webster's writings are placed, as it were, on a par- 
allel with the word of God himself; and a difficulty of which he is 
the subject, is spoken of in the same way as if it were a difficulty in 
reference to God ! And what is Mr. Ketchum's conclusion ? 
That, whilst he would trample on our conscientious scruples about 
the Deity, he bows with great deference to the scruple about Mr. 
Webster, and of this he goes on : — 

" However, if it is bona fide a conscientious scruple, there is the end of it ; 
we cannot reason with it. But, in tho judgment of the Common Council, and 
as I think must be the case in the judgment of every man, the difficulty is got 
over by tne proposition which has been made." 

Well now just let him extend a little of that indulgence to us, in 
the case in which our account to our Creator and eternal Judge is 
involved. But not so. He next says : — 

" The next complaint is, that we do not give religions education enough." 
Where did Mr. Ketchum find that ] That is " substitution," again- 
He has not found that in any thing from us. He proceeds : — 

"The memorials, all of which are public — and the speeches and documents 
which have been employed, and which, if necessary, can be furnished to the com- 
mittee — all go conclusively to demonstrate that, in the judgment of those who 
spoke for the Roman Catholic Church, we ought to teach religion in our public 
schools — not generally — not vaguely — not the general truths of religion ; but that 
specific religious instruction must be given. Now, I hardly suppose that this de- 
ficiency can be made the subject of conscienious objection." 

But that is a false issue. On none of these points has he stated 
our objection. We never objected, as far as Catholic children were 
concerned, that they did not teach religion. We complained of a 
system from which religion was (according to them) excluded et 
law. But that, on the contrary, they did attempt surepfitiously to 
introduce such teaching, in a form that we did not recognize. What 
does he say then ? — 

" The third and last complaint is, that our Catholic brethren cannot consent to 
have this Bible read in the hearing' of their children. Now, on every one of these 
points, the trustees have been disposed to go as far as they possibly could in the 
way of accommodation; but they never yet consented to give up the use of the Bi- 
ble to the extei t to which it is used in the schools. I say the trustees have never 
yet consented ;o this surrender. But if they can have good authority for doing it-, 
they \\L1 do it. 

•' If tii s Legislature, by its own act, will direct that the Bible shall be excluded, 
I will guarantee tlaat it shall be excluded/' 

Now, perhaps one of the rarest talents of an orator is that which 
enables him to accommodate his discourse to the character of the 
audience whom he addresses. But, like all rare talents, it should be 
exercised with discretion. That the learned gentleman possesses 
it, however, is proved by the fact, that the very declarations made 
by him before the Senate, are contradicted by his statements before 
the Common Council, and vice versa. Before the Common Coun- 
cil, in the presence of a number of the clergy, he eloquently de- 
uounced the exclusion of the Bible from the schools. If a compro- 



46 

raise depended on this, he must say, " no compromise !" Before 
the Senate, however, he is all obsequiousness. "Gentlemen, if you 
give us authority to exclude the Bible, I guarantee that it shall be 
so " [Cheers.] 

I recollect the beautiful period with which the gentleman 
wound up his sentiments before the Common Council. I remember 
him say'ng that " it would be hard to part with that translated Bi- 
ble — hard indeed, for it had been the consolation of many in death, 
the spring of hope in life, and wherever it had gone there was liberty 
and there was freedom ; and where it had not gone, there was dark- 
ness and there was despotism." But I must apologize for attempt- 
ing to repeat, as I spoil the poetry of his eloquent language. At 
the time, however, I thought what a beautiful piece of declamation 
that would be at a Bible Society meeting ; for on such occasions, 
owino- to the enthusiasm — the sincere enthusiasm of the auditors — 
and the oftentimes artificial enthusiasm of the speakers, all history, 
philosophy, and common sense occasionally, are rendered quite su- 
perfluous. The most beautiful phrases, resting on no basis but fan- 
cy, may be strung together, and will produce the deepest impression. 
But I doubt much, when we come to examine the sober reality of 
the matter, whether the poetical beauties of Mr. Ketchum's pic- 
ture will not be seen vanishing into thin air. I doubt much, indeed, 
whether the liberty whose origin and progress history has recorded, 
will be f>und to have sprung from " that translated Bible," in any 
sense, and especially in the sense of Mr. Ketchum. I, of course, 
yield to no man in profound veneration for the book of God ; 
but there is a point of exaggeration which does no credit, but in- 
jury, to that holy book. 

Let us look at these translations of the Bible. The first was Tyn- 
dall's, then Coverdale's, and then the Bishop's Bible; these re- 
mained till the time of James the First ; and during all that time, 
a period of about a century — if ever there was a period of degrading 
and slavish submission to tyranical power in England, it was then 
beyond all comparison. At the close of this period, a new transla- 
tion was made, and dedicated to the king. It was discovered that 
the " only rule of faith and practice" during all this time was full of 
errors and corruption. Every one knows that James was one of 
the poorest of the poor race from whom he was descended. Yet 
in their dedication, the translators appointed to amend the Rule of 
Faith by a new translation, call him the "Sun in his strength," and 
" that from his many and extraordinary graces, he might be called 

" THE WONDER OF THE WORLD." 

Now, during the succeeding sixty or eighty years what were the 
doctrines of liberty in England? It was then that the schoolmen of 
Oxford and Cambridge taught from that translated Bible the dogma 
of " wonresistance to the royal authoritt" — that "passive obe- 
dience" was the duty of subjects — that no crime nor possible tyran- 
ny of the prince, could authorize a subject to rebel. How could 
Mr. Ketchum forget all that 1 

Let us examine the facts of the case, and ascertain how correct 
Mr. Ketchum is when he said that liberty had always followed the 
progress of that translated Bible. You will find that from the period 



47 

of the Reformation, down to the period of the Revolution, Eng- 
land was sunk to the lowest degree of slavish submission to tyrani- 
cal authority. The spirit of old English freedom had disappeared 
at the Reformation ; and it was only at the Revolution, that, like 
a ship recovering its equilibrium after having long been capsized, 
by the storm that old spirit righted itself again. But do I speak 
poetry like Mr. Ketchum ? let me appeal to facts, (loud cheers.) 
We find the fudamental principles of liberty as well understood by 
our Catholic ancestors, centuries before the reformation, as they are 
at the present day. They well understood the principles that all 
civil authority is derived from the people, and that those elected to 
exercise it, are reponsible to those from whom they derive their 
power. 

" By one of the laws of Edward the Confessor, confirmed by the Conqueror, the duties of the 
king are defined]; and it is provided, that, unless he should properly discharge them, he should 
not be allowed even the name of king as a title of courtesy, and this on the authority of a pope. 
The coronation of Henry I. was based on as regular a contract as ever yet took place in 
market-overt. By the coronation oaths of the several monarchs, between him and John, a simi- 
lar contract was implied. By Magna Charta, and its articles for keeping the peace between 



but that only which he can do of right Therefore, while he does justice, he is the 

deputv of the Eternal King ; but the minister of the devil, when he turns to injustice. For he 
is called king from governing well, and not from reigning ; because he is king while he reigns 

well, but a tyrant, when he violently oppresses the people entrusted to him Lei 

the king, therefore, allow to the law what the law allows to him, — dominion and power, for 

he is not a king, with whom hiswill, and not the law, rules," — Duelin Review. 

There was the language of a Judge in the times before either the 
Reformation or James' translation of the Bible were dreamed of I 
I pass to another historical event — the crowning of John, on which 
occasion Hubert, the Archbishop of Canterbury, fearing that the 
monarch, from supposing that his royal blood alone entitled him to 
receive the kingly office, should throw the kingdom into confusion, 
reminded him that no one had such a right to succeed another in 
the government unless chosen by the people. 

" That no one had a right by any precedent reason to succeed another in the sovereignty, 
unless he were unanimously chosen by the entire kingdom, and pre-elected according to the 
eminency of his morals, after the example of Saul, the first anointed king, whom God had set 
over his people, though not a king's son or sprung of a royal race, that thus he who excel'ed 
all inability, should preside over all with power and authority. But if any of a deceased 
king's family excelled the rest of the nation, to his election they should more readily assent. For 
these reasons they had chosen Count John, the brother of their deceased king, on account as 
well of his merits as of his royal blood. To this declaration., John and the Assembly assented." 

I wonder whether an Archbishop of Canterbury, now, with this 
translated Bible in his hands, would dare to utter such language in 
the presence of the monarch, when he was about to officiate at a 
coronation ! Let us now turn to what occurred after this translation 
of the Bible. At the execution of the Earl of Monmouth, there 
were a number of Protestant divines who exhorted him to die like a 
" good christian," and the great point on which they insisted, was, 
that the subject was bound to obey the Prince, with " passive obe- 
dience. 

But the noble Earl, in whose breast there still burned something 
of the principles of the olden times of England, could not agree to 
that dogma, and then the divines under the influence of this trans- 
lated Bible, refused to pray for him. Their last words were 

" Then, my 'lord, we can only recommend you to the mercy of God, but we cannot pray 
with that cheerfulness and encouragement as we should, if you had made a particular acknow- 
ledgment." 



48 

The same doctrine was prevalent in the time of Tillotson, and he 
speaks of it not only as his own opinion, but as that of those for 
whom Mr. Ketchum claims the honor of being considered the apos- 
tles of English liberty ! I quote from the Dublin Review. 

" Among those who importuned the unfortunate Lord Russell to make a similar acknowledg- 
ment, was Tillotson, who, by letter, told him that this doctrine of non-resistance, ' was the 
declared doctrine of all Protestant Churches, though some particular persons had thought 
otherwise,' and expressed his concern ; that you do not leave the world in a delusion and false 
hope to the hinderance of your eternal happiness,' by doubting this saving article of faith. 
Within the same period, Bishop Sanderson delivered the doctrine in the followins clear and 
explicit language. He declares that, ' to blaspheme the holy name of God, to sacrifice to idols,' 
&.c. &c. ' to take up arms against a lawful sovereign, none of these, and sundry other things of 
the like nature, being'.all of them simple and de toto genere, unlawful, may be done on any color 
or pretence whatsoever, the express command of God only excepted, as in the case of Abra- 
ham sacrificing his son, not for the avoiding of scandal, not at the instance of any friend, 
or command of any power on earth — not for the maintenance of the lives and liberties of our- 
selves or others, nor for the defence of religion, nor for the preservation of the Church and 
State ; no nor yet, if that could be imagined possible, for the salvation of a soul, no not for the 
redemption of' the whole world.' This was considered a very orthodox effusion." 

An article of faith that you dare not under any circumstances re- 
sist the kingly power ! 

Compare then the language of Protestant divines having this trans- 
lated Bible before them, with that of Catholic divines at a former peri- 
od, and see the ground which Mr- Ketchum has found in England for 
his poetical assortion. But perhaps if we turn our attention to the Pro- 
testant governments on the continent of Europe, we may find his 
dream realized. Perhaps he may find it realized in Prussia? In 
that country their are two principal communions of Protestants, the 
Lutheran and the Calvanist. Now the King calls his officers to- 
gether, and tells them to draw up a liturgy — decrees that both will 
and shall, and must believe or practice this liturgy/ [laughter and 
cheers."] Or he may go to Norway, or Sweden, or Denmark, and 
the dark despotism of the North, perchance there he may find 
that liberty, of which he speaks, progressing with this translation. 
What kind of freedom let me ask Mr. Ketchum, followed this "trans- 
lated Bible" to Ireland — that everlasting monument of Catholic fide- 
lity and Protestant shame ! [tremendous applause.] 

But to come to this country — perhaps it was in New England 
amono - the puritans, that Mr. Ketchum's dream was realized? ask the 
Quaker ! [laughter] Perhaps it was Virginia — ask the Presbyteri- 
an ! Where was it ? Let me tell you. It was in Maryland among the 
Catholics. They knew enough of the rights of conscience to raise 
the first standard of religious liberty that ever floated on the breeze 
iu America. 

You may be told that Roger Williams, and his associates in 
Rhode Island, declared equal rights. Not at all — he excluded 
Roman Catholics from the exercising the elective franchise. 
But the Catholics did not exclude him. They may refer to Penn- 
sylvania — the reference is equally unfortunate, for Penn wrote 
from England, remonstrating with the Governor Logan, I believe, 
for permitting the scandal of Catholic worship in Philadelphia. 
Turn now, look at the constellation of Catholic Republics, be- 
fore Protestantism was dreamed of as a future contingency. 
Look at Venice, Genoa, Florence, and that little republic, not 
larger than a pins head on the map — San Marino — which has 
preserved its independence for such a long course of centuries, 
lest the science of republicanism should be lost to the world ! 



49 

Look at Poland, — when the Protestants were persecuting one 
another to the death in Germany, Poland opened her gates to 
the refugees, and made them equal with her own subjects, and in 
the Diet of Poland, at which the law was passed, there were 
eight Catholie Bishops, and they must have sanctioned the law, 
for the liberism veto, gave each the power to prevent it. I chal- 
lenge Mr. Ketchum to point, in the whole history of the globe, 
to one instance of similar liberality on the part of Protestants 
towards Catholics! 

Now what becomes of that beautiful declaration of Mr. Ketch- 
um, that wherever that translation had gone, liberty had followed ? 
I know indeed, that in this country, we all enjoy equal, civil 
rights, but I know also that it was not Protestant liberality that 
secured them. They grew out of necessity ; and in the declar- 
ation of them there is no difference made between one religion 
and another. Catholics contended as valiantly as any other in 
the first ranks of the contest for liberty. And I fervently hope, 
that it is too late in the day for any one to pretend that Catho- 
lics have been so blinded by their religion as to be unable to 
know what is liberty and what is not. (Cheers.) 

Be it understood then, that not one of the objections which 
Mr. Ketchum has put into our mouths respecting the Bible, was 
presented to the Senate by us. 

Mr. Ketchum after having thus disposed of our pretended objec- 
tions, goes on to speak of the Secretary's Report : — 

"They will be satisfied with it, it will give them what they ask. Now, let us 
see how. There is no proposition contained in this Report that religious so- 
cieties, as such, shall participate in this fund — none." 

Then, Sir, I ask what is your objection % In New York before 
the Common Council all your opposition was directed against 
" religious societies. Mr. Spencer has removed every ground 
for that, and 1 therefore ask what is your objection % Your 
object is to preserve the Public School Society in the possession 
of the monopoly, not only of the funds contributed by the 
citizens for the support of education, but also of the chil- 
dren. He says: — 

"The trustees of districts shall indicate what religion shall be taught in 
those schools; that is to say, that you shall have small masses ; that these small 
masses shall elect their trustees ; and as the majority of the people in those small 
masses may direct, so shall be the character of the religious instruction imparted." 

Mr. Spencer wishes to take from the Society that very feature 
which is objected to — that is to say, he wishes that religion shall 
neither be excluded nor enforced by law. And yet, Mr. Ketchum, 
by his old principle of substitution, makes out quite a different 
proposition from the Report, and infers that the Trustees shall 
have the power to prescribe what religion shall be taught. I do 
not see that in the report at all. On the contrary, the Secretary 
leaves parents at liberty to act on that subject as they see proper. 
Mr. Ketchum supposes a case to illustrate his view of the mat- 
ter, which I must say does not do him much credit. He says: 

"But when a school is formed in the sixth ward of the city of New York, in 
which ward (for the sake of the argument we will assume) the Roman Catholics 
have a majority in the district ; they choose their trustees and these trustees 
indicate that a specific form of religion, to wit, the Roman Catholic, shall be 

7 



50 

taught n that school — that mass shall be said there, and that the children shall 
cross themselves with holy water in the school, having the right to do so according 
to this Report, the Catholics beins> in a majority there. Then, and not till then, 
can these Roman Catholics conscientiously send their children to school — thai is 
to say their objections to this system are to be overcome by having a school to 
which they conscientiously send their children; and that school must be one in 
which religion is to be taught according to their particular views." 

That is drawing an inference without the facts, for we never 
said so; never even furnished him with authority to say so; and 
although Mr. Ketchum has the authority of the Public School 
Society to speak, yet that does not enable him, when he states 
what is not the fact, to make it true. But I wish to know why 
he brought up that picture at all; why the Sixth Ward should 
have peculiar charms in his imagination; or why he should have 
introduced all that about the children crossing themselves with 
holy water 1 And pray is it for Mr. Ketchum to find fault with 
what he supposes to be a religious error, and for which he is not 
at all accountable 1 He has not shown, nor has any man shown, 
that any such consequences would follow; it is impossible that 
the Trustees could act so ridiculously as to permit such a thing ; 
it was incredible that they being responsible to the officers ap- 
pointed by the State, and under the eye of such vigilant gentle- 
men as Mr. Ketchum, and the Public School Society, could per- 
mit mass to be celebrated in the school! Yet such is the picture 
presented by Mr. Ketchum, quite in accordance with his old 
course, and in order to excite popular prejudices, for which pur- 
pose this speech seems to have been so studiously prepared. For 
he well knew, that amongst a large portion of the Protestants, 
there is a vast amount of traditional prejudice against Catholics 
which has, from being repeated incessantly, and seldom contra- 
dicted, become fixed, occupying the place of truth and know- 
ledge. Their case reminds me of what is related of Baron Man- 
chausen. It is said, that when this celebrated traveller was old, 
he had a kind of consciousness that there was some former period 
of his life when he knew that all his stories were untrue, but he 
had repeated them so often that, now, he actually believed them 
to be true ! (Loud laughter and cheers.) 

It is to such persons as are under the influence of these pre- 
judices and bigotries that Mr. Ketchum addresses his speech ; 
and if he utter the sentiments of the Public School Society, how, 
I ask, can we confide to their hands the training of the tender 
minds of our children 1 

But one of the most remarkable things in this speech is, that 
after having beaten off* in succession the different religious deno- 
minations, because, as he said, they would teach religion, having 
in fact played the one sect against the other. Mr. K. turns round 
and affirms that the Society itself does teach religion. He says : 

"No, sir. I affirm that the religion taught in the public schools is precisely that 
quantity of religionjwhich we have a visrht to teach ; it would be inconsistent with 
public sentiment to teach less; it would be illegal to teach more." 

The " exact quantity !" Apothecary's weight ! (great laughter) 
Nothing about the quality, except that Mr. Ketchum having made 
it an objection that we wished religion in a definite form, he will 
give it an indefinite form — a fine religion — but at all events there 



51 

is to be the " legal quantity." Well now let us see something' 
about the quality of this religion — and I wish to consider the 
subject seriously. And here let me refer to a beautiful senti- 
ment expressed by the Secretary in his Report. He says, that 
religion and literature have become so blended that the separa- 
tion of the one from the other is impossible. A more true or 
appropriate declaration could not proceed from the lips of any 
man wishing the welfare of his country and his kind ! (cheers.) 

Now whenever we made objections to that Society for pretend- 
ing that religious subjects were excluded by law it was on these 
grounds. We said, we refer you to the experience of public 
men — to that of the most celebrated Statesmen in Europe, even 
the infidels of France, who have uniformly declared that socie- 
ty cannot exist except on the basis of religion. All of them 
whether believing in religion or not, have admitted the necessity 
of having some kind of religion as the basis of the social edi- 
fice. But these gentlemen, in all their debates, have contended, 
that the education to be given should be " purely civil and secu- 
lar." That is their official language. And noAV for the first 
time, Mr. Ketchum before the Senate, declares that the So- 
ciety does teach religion, and exactly the proper quantity ! 

Let me now call your attention to a passage in one of their 
reading books, in order that we may see a specimen of this re- 
ligion. I will now make a few comments on the passage, but I 
do conceive that there are persons of all those denominations 
who recognize the doctrine of the Divinity, who could not be in- 
duced to have the minds of their children inoculated with such 
sentiments as it contains. Referring to our Blessed Redeemer, 
one of their school books says : 

"His answers 1o the many insiduoiis questions that were put to him, showed 
uncommon quickness of conception, soundness of judgment and presence of 
mind ; completely baffled all the artifices and malice of his enemies ; and enabled 
him to elude all the snares that were iaid for him." 

Are these the ideas of the divine attributes of the Redeemer 
which the Christian portion of the community wish impres- 
sed on the minds of their children % That such have been 
the sentiments taught by the Society for the last sixteen eyars, 
they cannot deny. And they may account for it as they 
please, but it has attracted the attention of many, that for the last 
sixteen years, the progress of that young and daring blasphemy 
that trifles with all that is sacred, has increased ten fold in this 
city. How do I account for it 1 In two ways — first, because a 
large portion of the young are debarred from the benefits of edu- 
cation, and on the other hand, there is the attempt which has 
been made to divorce religion from literature. When such causes 
exist, you need not be surprised to find that infidelity thickens its 
ranks and raises on every side its bold and impious front. 

I have presented you with a specimen of the quality of that 
religion which Mr. Ketchum says is dealt out with exact and le- 
gal measure. 

Mr. Ketchum contends that it is religion of a decided character 
that we want. And pray what are we to understand by a religion 
that is not decided 1 A religion which is vague — a general re- 



52 

ligion \ What is the meaning of these terms I I desire to have 
a definition of them. 

If there is to be established by law a Public-School-Society' 
religion, I should like to have its confession of faith, and be in- 
formed of the number of its articles, and the nature of the doc- 
trines contained in them. But it seems tome, that Mr. Ketchum 
and this Public School Society resemble a body of men who are 
opposed to all physicians because they understand medicine ; 
and who, although themselves opposed to all practice of medi- 
cine, are yet disposed to administer to the patients of the regular 
practitioners. And the comparison holds good — for, after all, 
children are born with a natural moral disease — want of know- 
ledge, and evil propensities, and education and religion are the 
remedial agents to counteract these evil tendencies, and remove 
the natural infirmity. Then we have the practitioners, as they 
may be termed, coming to see the patient, the whole community 
supplying the medicine chest ; and we have these men surround- 
ino' this chest and exclaiming to the physicians, " Clear off! you 
are a Thompsonian, and you are a Broussaist, and you are a 
Homopathic, and you are a regular practitioner, and you wish to 
prescribe remedies of a decided and definite character, which is 
contrary to ' a great principle,' " — and having thus banished all 
the physicians, they turn doctors themselves and mix up their 
drugs into what they call a " general medicine," of which they 
administer what they call the legal quantity. (laughter 
and cheers.) But the gentlemen forget that neither the patient 
nor the medicine are theirs. Those who furnish the patient and 
supply the medicine chest, should have a voice in the selection of 
the Doctors. 

What do the gentlemen really intend 1 They object to religious 
societies, but after they have got them pushed out of the house, 
they begin to teach religion themselves ! Mr. Ketchum acknow- 
ledges that. He and Mr. Sedgwick, his associate, however, do 
not appear to have studied theology in the same school. One 
says, that religion is the basis of all morality, the other, that mo- 
rality is the basis of religion. And after all, do men agree any 
more in their views of morality than religion 1 Certainly not. 
And yet you must give to the children, especially those of 
that class attending these schools, for it should be borne in mind 
that they, for the most part, do not enjoy the opportunity of pa- 
rental or pastoral instruction — some supply of religious educa- 
tion. They are the offspring of parents who, unfortunately, can- 
not supply that deficiency ; and if they are brought up in this 
way with a kind of contempt for religion, or with the most vague 
idea of it, the most lamentable results must necessarily follow. 

I now come to another point — the non-attendance of the chil- 
dren in the schools. Whilst our humble school rooms are crowded 
to excess, the society has been obliged to give $1000 a year to 
persons for recruiting for children. In Grand street they have 
erected a spledid building, almost sufficient to accommodate the 
Senate of the State, and besides all that, we find that they are 
able to lavish public money in payment to agents to collect 
children. Mr. Seton, who has been a faithful agent of the So- 



■ciety, made that fact known, and stated that by this means 800 
children were collected. And to whom was this money given 1 
To Tract Distributors — a very good occupation theirs, I have no 
doubt — but at the same time that was rather a singular appropria- 
tion by men so extremely scrupulous lest any portion of the 
public money should go to the support of any sect. But I sup- 
pose that was on the principle of what Mr. Ketchum calls " giv- 
ing and taking ;" that is, you give a tract and take a child ! 
(laughter and cheers.) 

Then we have quite an effort on the part of Mr. Ketchum, to 
prove that the Trustees discharge their onerous duties much bet- 
ter than officers elected by the people. I will quote his remark s 
on that point. 

" This Public School Soceity receives its daily sustenance from the represen- 
tatives of the people — and the moment that sustenance is withdrawn, it dies — it 
cannot cany on its operations for a clay." 

A most beautiful subversion of the actual order ! For so far 
from the Common Council patronizing the Society, it is the So- 
ciety that patronizes the Common Council — taking them into 
partnership the moment they are elected, and so far from being 
dependent on the Council, as was well remarked by a greater 
authority than I am on this subject, the Council are dependent 
on the Society. The schools belong to the Society, just as much 
as the Harlaem bridge does to the Company who built it. What 
remedy is there then. The Society, self constituted a close cor- 
poration, takes into partnership the Common Council, which then 
becomes part and parcel — bone of the bone, and flesh of the 
flesh — of the Society; and if any difference arises between the 
citizens and the Society, a committee of that very Society adju- 
dicates in the cause ! Thus we have found, that the Common 
Council after having denied our claim, and even when about to 
retire and give place to their successors, followed us to Albany; 
and their last act — like that of the retreating Parthian who flung 
his dart behind him — was to lay their remonstrance on the table 
of the tribunal to which we had appealed. Mr. Ketchum says : — 

" Here are agents of the people — men who, having a desire to serve man- 
kind, associate together ; they offer to take the superintendence of particular 
works, they offer themselves to the public as agents to carry out certain bene- 
volent purposes: and, instead of paying men for the labor, they volunteer to do 
it ior you, " without money and without price," under your directions — to do it 
■as your servants — and to give an account to you and an account to the Legislature. 
Voluntary public service is always more efficient than labor done by servants 
chosen in any other way." 

So that because they serve gratuitously they discharge their 
duties much better than if elected by the people ! Well, let us 
improve upon the hint. Perhaps some of them may be kind 
enough to discharge the more important functions of the govern- 
ment for nothing! But if volunteers be more efficient than offi- 
cers chosen by the votes of the people, let us abolish the farce of 
elections altogether. Not satisfied with this, Mr. Ketchum also, 
would seem to contend, that the volunteers ought not to be held 
responsible ! 

To establish his views on this point, Mr. Ketchum refers to char- 
itable and benevolent Institutions. But where is the justice of the 



54 

comparison ! The sick are incompetent to secure their own pro- 
tection and recovery. The inmates of the House of Refuge, on 
which Mr. Ketchnm has a beautiful apostrophe, referring to his own 
share in the erection of that one established in this city, are like- 
wise unable to take cave of themselves. And here let me say, in 
all sincerity to Mr. ketcluun, that it' he and the Public School 
Society determine to perpetuate their system ; it" they continue 
to exclude religion from education, and at the same time deprive 
four-fifths of the children, as now, of any education at all; then 
he had better stretch his lines and lay the foundations of Houses 
of Refuge, as the appropriate supplement to the system. Neither 
does the comparison hold, as I have before shown, in reference 
to Lunatic Asylums, &C. flee. 

Then Mr. ketcluun goes on to illustrate farther, and says: — 

'■ B«; it is said, and a be report ol the S< 

retain these Public S 3 How retain them ? ( eatures ofi 

- - I be paid I Under 

such a law i . ■ day." 

What an acknowledgment is that! That a law, which would 
make education free — giving equal rights to all — would be the 
death-warrant of the Public School Society ! 

There is another point on which Mr. Ketchnm does not now dwell 
so emphatically. He says that there were a large number of tax- 
payers who — wonderful to relate! — asked for the privilege oi 
beino- taxed; asked for that privilege for the purpose of supplying 
the Public School Society with money to carry out. their benevo- 
lent purposes. Mr. Ketchnm seems to consider that at that time 
there was a kind oi covenant made between these petitioners to be 
taxed, and the State authorities; that when they petitioned and 
were taxed, the authorities of the State bound themselves to keep 
up this system in perpetuum. But did these persons ask to be 
taxed exclusively out of their own pockets, or did they ask io: a 
D oi taxation which should reach all the tax paying citizens 
1 New-York \ There is a fallacy in Mr. Ketchum's argument here. 
He supposes that because these persons are large property hold- 
ers, that they are therefore, f/eiece, the payers oi taxes. 
He forgets that it is a fact well understood in the science of poli- 
tical economy, that the consumer is, after all, the tax-payer; that 
it is the tenants occupying the property of those rich men, and 
returning them their large rents, who are actually the tax payers. 
And what peuliar merit, then, can Mr. Ketchnm claim for these 
owners of property, and petitioners to have all the rest of the citi- 
zens taxed as well as themselves! But he insists there was an 
agreement — a covenant entered into between them, and the State 
authorities, and if yon interfere with its provisions, you must 
release these tax-payers from their obligations as such. "\\ ith 
all my heart, I have no objection! All we want is that there 
should be no unjust interference; no exclusive system; no extra- 
neous authority interposed between the tax-payer and the purpose 
for which the tax is collected. But the fact that others, besides 
these petitioners, are equally involved in the burthen, demolishes 
this argument oi Mr. Ketchnm. 

In his conclusion the learned gentleman insists, that unless the 



Society remain as it is, it cannot exist. And then goes on further, 
for it would be impossible for him to close his speech without again 
reminding the Senate that we are Roman Catholics. He says: — 

" The people in New York understand the subject, and the Roman Catholics 
cannot say that they will not be heard as well there as here. Why not leave the 
matter to us, the people of the city of New York ?" 

Thus Mr. Ketchum, after having first endeavored to impress the 
minds of the Senate, that we had had all imaginable fair play ; that 
other denominations had made applications similar to ours — which 
is not the fact ; — that our petition had uniformly been denied in the 
several Boards representing the people of New-York — whereas he 
knew that in this question the people of New-York was never 
even represented by the Common Council; — he goes on to say at 
last: " Why not leave the matter to us — the people of the city of 
New- York 1" 1 trust not, if a committee of the Public School 
Society, called the Common Council, are to be at once parties 
and judges. 1 hope that the question will not be referred back, 
although for Mr. Ketchum's satisfaction, I may state, that if it were 
so referred, the Common Council would not, I will venture to say, 
now decide upon it by such a vote as they did before, when one 
man alone had the courage — whether he was right or wrong — to 
say nay, when all said yes ! (Loud and long continued cheering.) 
In consequence of that vote — as they have since taken care to 
tell us — this gentleman lost his election; but, what was of infi- 
nitely greater importance, he preserved his honor. (Renewed 
applause.) Were the matter now before the Common Council, 
they would see a thousand and one reasons for hesitation before 
deciding as before. For when public men see that any measure 
is likely to be popular, they can find abundant reasons for taking 
a favorable view of the question. I will refer Mr. Ketchum to a 
sign from which he may learn what he pleases. Since the Common 
Council that denied our claims went out of office, their succes- 
sors have had the matter before them ; and when in the Board of 
Assistants it was proposed to pass a resolution, requesting the 
Legislature to defer trie consideration of the question, the motion 
was negatived by a tie vote. 

Still Mr. Ketchum will have the end of this speech some- 
thing like the end of the last. Then he said that this was a most 
distressing topic to the gentlemen of the Public School Society 
— that they were men of peace — that I do not controvert, but 
certainly I must say, that in the course of this contest, they appear 
to have exhibited a spirit contrary to their natures ! — but so 
peaceful were they, Mr. Ketchum said, that, if any longer annoyed, 
they would throw up their office and retire ! (cheers aud laugh- 
ter.) But alter all, they could send their agents to Albany to 
oppose us there — the one, Dr. Rockwell, to disseminate a bur- 
lesque on our faith, from Tristram Shandy — the other, Mr. 
Ketchum, to plead as zealously, but I think not as successfully 
against the recognition of our claims. Mr. Ketchum says — 

" Now the contest is renewed, and the trustees engage in it with extreme re- 
luctance ; they have no personal interes'sto advance, and they are very unwilling 
to he put in hostile array against any of their follow citizens." 

Mr. Chairman — The lateness of the hour admonishes me that 



56 

I have trespassed too much upon your patience. I have hut one 
observation to make in conclusion. 

These gentlemen have spoken much, and laid great emphasis 
on the importance of morality, but as I have already remarked, 
morality is not always judged of by the same criterion. Let me 
illustrate this. According to the morality which my religion 
teaches, if I rob a man, or injure him in his property, and desire 
to be reconciled to God, I must, first of all, if it be in my power, 
make reparation to the man whom I have injured. Again, if I 
should unfortunately rob my neighbor of his good name ; of his 
reputation ; either by accident or through malice, before I can 
hope for reconciliation with an offended God, I must repair the 
injury and restore my neighbor's good name. If 1 belied him, 
I must acknowledge the lie as publicly as it Avas uttered — that 
is Catholic morality. Well now, these gentlemen have belied 
us — they have put forward and circulated a document which ex- 
isted only in the imagination of Sterne — a foul document — and 
represented it as a part of our creed. I do not say that they di- 
rectly required this to be done ; but their Agent did it, and he 
cannot deny it. I wonder now, then, if they will have such a 
sense of morality as will impel them to endeavor to repair the 
injury thus done to our reputation by any official declaration that 
that is a spurious document! I wonder if the conscientious 
morality that presides over the "Journal of Commerce" will 
prompt its editors to such a course ! If it do not, then it is a 
morality different from ours. 

I apprehend that no such reparation will be offered for the in- 
jury we have sustained by the everlasting harangue of abuse 
and virtuperation that has been poured out against us for these 
few years past. Have we not been assailed with a foul and infa- 
mous fiction, in the pages of a work called "Maria Monk!" and 
have its Reverend authors ever stood forward to do us justice, 
and acknowledge the untruth which, knowing it to be so, they pub- 
lished! Have they ever attempted to counteract that obscene 
poison which they disseminated, corrupting the morals of youth 
throughout every hamlet in the land! Whilst denouncing in 
their ecclesiastical assemblies, the Avorks of Byron and Bulvver, 
did they include in their denunciations, the filthy and enormous 
lie, published under their auspices, the writings of " Makia Monk !" 

What idea then must we form of their morality and religion ! 
And hear it would be unjust to omit mentioning that many Prot- 
estants, not under the influence of blinded bigotry, have done us 
justice on this point. In particular, I refer to the eonduct of one 
distinguished Protestant writer who cannot be accused of great 
partiality for us, but who exposed and refuted authors and abet- 
tors of this filthy libel to which I have referred. I know that it 
would be incorrect and unjust, to say that thousands of others, 
sincere Protestants, but high minded honorable men, have not 
taken the same view of the subject. But I speak particularly of the 
morality of the authors and publishers of these abominable slan- 
ders, and I regret that the Public School Society,by their recent pro- 
ceedings, should have allowed themselves to sink to a kindred 
degradation ! (The Pit. Rev. Prelate, here resumed his seat amid 
thunders of applause, which lasted several minutes.) 



